W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-site-comments@w3.org > July 2004

Watch it here - FREE - "This Land is Your Land " The Macromedia Flash animated film - AS SEEN ON CBS.COM !

From: Rex <rex@x234.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:53:35 -0400
Message-ID: <059301c46fb0$3ada5190$6501a8c0@DAN>
To: <rex@x234.com>
My Way News
  ~ This Land is Your Land ! ~

  Click here to see the "This Land" Flash Short! 

  Click HERE to download a free stand-alone FLASH Player

  Right click HERE to save the full "thisland.swf" to your desktop!
  Save it now and pass it around to your friends!
  This flash short is extremely popular - 
  Get it it now before the servers crash again from excessive traffic!






        "Right out of the starting gate, Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office.' Let me repeat that. 'Mr. Berger was an unfortunate choice for a national security position with the government because of his prior role as the chief Washington lobbyist for the Chinese Government's trade office." 
    -Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), House of Representatives, Congressonal Record 3/23/99 



            AP: Berger Steps Down As Kerry Adviser

            Jul 20, 4:53 PM (ET)

            By RON FOURNIER 
                              (AP) Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is seen Sunday, Feb. 22, 1998, in Washington. Berger,...
                              Full Image 

            WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, the subject of a criminal investigation over the disappearance of terrorism documents, stepped aside on Tuesday as an informal adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. 

            "Mr. Berger does not want any issue surrounding the 9/11 commission to be used for partisan purposes. With that in mind he has decided to step aside as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign until this matter is resolved," said Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney. 

            The investigation had threatened to become a political problem for Kerry a week before his nominating convention in Boston in which he hopes to persuade voters that he is ready to be commander in chief. The cornerstone of Kerry's argument against Bush is that he used faulty intelligence and poor judgment in waging war against Iraq. 

            Berger, former President Clinton's national security adviser, is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department after highly classified terrorism documents disappeared while he was reviewing what should be turned over to the Sept. 11 commission. 

            Berger's home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents. 

            However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press. 

            Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 





  Berger on the 'Wall'
  The election debate behind the documents-in-pants caper.

  Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:01 a.m.

  We'll grant that visions of a former National Security Adviser stuffing classified documents down his trousers or socks makes for good copy. But count us more interested in learning what's in the documents themselves than in where on his person Sandy Berger may have put them when he was sneaking them out of the National Archives. 
  For the evidence suggests that the missing material cuts to the heart of the choice offered in this election: Whether America treats terrorism as a problem of law enforcement or an act of war. 

  Mr. Berger admits to having deliberately taken handwritten notes he'd made out of the Archives reading room. On the more serious charges involving the removal (and subsequent discarding) of highly classified documents--including drafts of a key, after-action memo Mr. Berger had himself ordered on the U.S. response to al Qaeda threats in the run-up to the Millennium--he maintains he did so "inadvertently." 

  There's only one way to clear away the political smoke: Release all the drafts of the review Mr. Berger took from the room. 

  If it's all as innocent as Mr. Berger's friends are saying, there's no reason not to make them public. But there are good reasons for questioning Mr. Berger's dog-ate-my-homework explanation. To begin with, he was not simply preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. He was the point man for the Clinton Administration, reviewing and selecting the documents to be turned over to the Commission. 

  Written by Richard Clarke for the NSC, the key document was called the Millennium After-Action Review because it dealt with al Qaeda attacks timed for the eve of the Millennium celebrations. In his own 9/11 testimony, Mr. Berger described these al Qaeda plans as "the most serious threat spike of our time in government." He went on to say that they provoked "sustained attention and rigorous actions" from the Administration that ended up saving lives. 

  But Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has the advantage of having read the document in question, had a different take. In his own 9/11 testimony in April, Mr. Ashcroft recommended that the Commission "study carefully" the after-action memo. He described it as laying out vulnerabilities and calling for aggressive remedies of the type he and the Bush Administration have been criticized for. Mr. Ashcroft further noted that when he took office, this "highly classified review" was "not among" the items he was briefed on during the transition. 

  Maybe that is because of the potential for embarrassment at the mentality the memo reveals. Mr. Ashcroft testified that the Justice Department's "surveillance and FISA operations were specifically criticized for their glaring weaknesses." The most glaring, of course, were the restrictions on the sharing of critical information between intelligence and law enforcement--even within the FBI itself. This was the infamous "wall of separation" that Clinton Deputy AG Jamie Gorelick instructed the FBI director should "go beyond what is legally required." 


  From today's vantage we can see the consequences. Ahmed Ressam was one of the would-be Millennium bombers whom the French had identified to U.S. intelligence agencies as an al Qaeda operative planning to attack America. But the "wall of separation" meant that when an alert U.S. customs officer stopped Ressam as he tried to enter the country from Vancouver, the Justice Department had no idea who he was. This helps illuminate the claim made in the missing memo, according to Mr. Ashcroft's testimony, that our success in stopping these 1999 attacks was a result of sheer "luck." 
  Assuming Mr. Ashcroft's characterizations under oath are true, it would explain why Mr. Berger's "inadvertent" actions seemed to zero in on the various drafts of this review. Sources tell us that Archives staff noticed documents missing after one of Mr. Berger's visits. After gently raising the issue with him, they were shocked to have him return other documents they hadn't even noticed missing. The result was that the next time Mr. Berger went to the Archives, the documents he was given were all marked. 

  Mr. Berger attributes the disappearance of this classified information to the kind of "sloppiness" that comes from reviewing "thousands of pages of documents." But it strikes us as amazing that mere sloppiness could account for how Mr. Berger seized on the same memo during two different visits. 


  We're not interested in rehashing what the Clinton Administration or even Mr. Berger did or didn't do vis-a-vis the al Qaeda threat pre-9/11. Nor are we much interested about Mr. Berger's troubles with the law. What does interest us is what this memo might tell us about how America should respond to terror. 
  Given Mr. Berger's role (until he resigned yesterday) as a Kerry adviser, surely this is something worth debating. And if the missing memos say what Mr. Ashcroft has hinted they do, we can well understand why Mr. Berger would want to keep them in his trousers during a crucial election year.

  Copyright  2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 



    From www.RushLimbaugh.com: 
          7/20 Archived Show:  Click here for audio 



    Reprinted from NewsMax.com

  Tuesday, July 20, 2004 

  Berger's Disgrace Shakes Kerry's Campaign 

  Bad news for John Kerry: In its shamefully inadequate coverage of the Sandy Berger scandal, even the New York Times today admitted that he was an adviser to the Democrat presidential candidate.

  Terry McAuliffe's favorite propaganda sheet, of course, merely mentioned the connection in passing, but fortunately Fox News Channel and other media are digging below the surface... 



        A first: Lesbian couple 'married' in Mass. to challenge federal Defense of Marriage Act 
        By Michael Foust 
        Jul 19, 2004 

        TAMPA, Fla. (BP)--In an historic lawsuit, a same-sex couple "married" in Massachusetts is expected to file a legal challenge July 20 against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

        If successful, the lawsuit could result in all 50 states recognizing same-sex "marriage."

        Florida attorney Ellis Rubin is scheduled to file the lawsuit in a Tampa, Fla., federal court on behalf of Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a lesbian couple who received a marriage license in Massachusetts July 2 and are suing to have it recognized in Florida, a spokesperson for Rubin told Baptist Press. Wilson is pastor of Trinity Metropolitan Community Church -- a church that affirms homosexuality -- in Sarasota, Fla.

        The lawsuit would be the first against the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of a same-sex couple who have a state-recognized marriage license. Legal experts say the license strengthens the couple's case.

        A friend of the couple, Robin Tyler of Dontamend.com, said the lawsuit is necessary. Dontamend.com, which first announced the lawsuit, is a campaign seeking to prevent the passage of a constitutional marriage amendment.

        "We do not have equal protection under the law, and we will continue to sue across this country, until the Supreme Court of the United States finally grants us full marriage equality," Tyler said in the statement.

        Although Rubin has filed lawsuits recently seeking the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Florida, this is the first one where his clients have a valid marriage license.

        The nation's major homosexual rights organizations -- such as Lambda Legal -- have yet to file suit against DOMA in federal court, perhaps because they believe the political timing isn't right.

        Signed into law in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act is the federal law that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's same-sex "marriages." The law also prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex "marriage." If it is overturned, then every state presumably would be forced to recognize Massachusetts' same-sex "marriages."

        The controversy over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is at the heart of the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment... 

        (Also see: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38727)



        Habeas Dangerous
        By Henry Mark Holzer
        FrontPageMagazine.com | July 20, 2004

        Late last month, the Supreme Court of the United States decided its first three War-on-Terrorism cases.  It's bad enough that two of the three decisions considerably weaken the President's power as constitutional Commander-in-Chief to fight that war, exemplify judicial activism at its worst, and again expose the Court as an Orwellian "more equal than others" branch of government.  Worse, is that the decision in the third case - Rasul v. Bush - augurs ill not only for the War-on-Terrorism, but for all future United States military actions.  To understand the importance of Rasul and the danger it poses to America's national security, it is necessary to examine first the other two cases....



(image/jpeg attachment: SEPT_11_BERGER_PROBE.sff_WX104_20040719200236.jpg)

(image/gif attachment: ballogo.gif)

(image/gif attachment: logo.gif)

(image/gif attachment: storyend_dingbat.gif)

(image/jpeg attachment: welcomeBarGuestOpt.jpg)

Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 02:13:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:55:24 UTC