"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:46:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


It's clear he took a number of copies, plus the notes he had
contemporaneously generated, which were also supposed to be subject to
censorship. But I understood from reports that there are, in fact, a
small number of originals now unaccounted for.

On further reading, I believe you are right. I found this:

"The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report
as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration,
officials and lawyers say. The Archives is believed to have copies of some
of the missing documents."

Still, as they are draft versions, it's criminal, but unlikely
revisionist.

http://news.lawinfo.com/story/3_ds_34549.cfm

Today, I went back and read the transcript of Berger's testimony before the
9/11 commission from March 24th, 2004. An interesting exchange took place
between Commission member Fielding and Mr. Berger, in which they were
discussing the "after-action" report from the time period between December
'98 and mid-'99. I believe this is the same after-action report (and its
various versions) that Berger is now accused of stealing from the archives.

Anyhow, here's the exchange:

FIELDING: But there was an after-action report.

BERGER: I'm sure there was.

FIELDING: Thank you.

BERGER: No, excuse me. Let me correct the record. I'm not sure there was. I
believe there was, Mr. Fielding. And I remember being told that and but I've
never seen an after-action report.

http://tinyurl.com/3jjtq



In light of the fact that Berger stole the after-action report 9 months ago,
and then testified under oath that he'd "never seen an after-action report",
I'd say that he's lying. Wouldn't you?