"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:54:50 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


And.....the note taking was probably to make sure that Clarke's story
will
jive with his previous reports.

I have to wonder what Clinton has from Berger's FBI raw files to make
Berger to take the risk........................

Wow, that is an incredibly paranoid statement. I have know people who
have thought there was a commie behind every tree, but only two Clintons
can cause all this fear?


Clinton is the excuse right-wing trash uses to change the subject from
the failings of their idiot president Bush.

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.



In March, Berger denied seeing the after-action report that he is now
accused of stealing 9 months ago. In fact, Berger freely admits that he
"inadvertently" removed the after-action report! So why did he lie to
Commission member Fielding when asked about the report in March?



What did the "other versions" of the report say? Did Clinton turn down a
chance to get bin Laden in late '98-mid '99. Did Clinton ignore irrefutable
evidence that bin Laden (and/or Iraq) was behind the Cole bombing? Did the
after-action report discuss Iraqi or Iranian ties to the terrorist attacks
on the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, or our embassies? Did
the alternate versions of the report maybe mention TWA 800 as being a
terrorist attack? (Berger made mention in his testimony that at first it was
thought that TWA 800 was a terrorist attack).

It has become apparent that Berger went to great lengths to hide something
that was contained in those "alternate versions" of the after-action report.
What was it?