First: From the nature of this, the only sources I could find info about this were right-wing sources (which as we know often lack credibility) - so I came across this Canadian site (whose template looked alot like NewsMax) and I did some research on the authors of this article: David Hawkins is a CBS Correspondent, and
Judi McLeod is a Conservative Canadian.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover102105h.htm

Able Danger, Curt Weldon, Clinton
Was there an intended Abel of Cain and Abel fame in the Able Danger Story?
By David Hawkins & Judi McLeod
Friday, October 21, 2005

Was it a typo or a boast in code from Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) arsenal when the word "Abel" somehow replaced "Able", as in Able Danger in the published text from Rep. Curt Weldon’s defense of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on the House Floor yesterday?

Able was spelled Abel several times in the typed transcript from Weldon’s hour-long plea to Congressmen for a new probe into what he says is a "witch-hunt by defense officials against a September 11 intelligence whistleblower" (Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer).

Able Danger was the elite, 20-member, highly classified U.S. Army Intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) that identified Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before the attack only to have their intelligence blocked by lawyers in the Bill Clinton administration,

And now it’s happening again to what Weldon says could be "a second pot of information". Only this time it’s defense officials and lawyers blocking the truth from coming out.

Biblical brother Abel was the first recorded murder, as related in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 4:1 through 4:16. Abel was toiling in the field when his brother, Cain rose up against him and slew him.

There are enough twists and turns in the Able Danger story without boasts in code.

"What’s happening here is unacceptable. Unimaginable. Un-American," says Weldon.

It seems in addition to trying to smear the reputation of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the DIA is doing everything to keep the truth about 9/11 from ever coming out,

Weldon lamented that it was not until June of this year that he knew that Able Danger had actually identified a Brooklyn cell of al Qaeda in January and February of 2000.

Since the outset the story of Able Danger has been fraught with more intrigues than any spy novel.

It was leaders of the DIA, including the deputy director, says Weldon, who decided that they do not want the story told.

"They have gagged the military officers. They have prevented them from talking to any Member of Congress. They have prevented them from talking to the media. And the Defense Intelligence Agency has began a process to destroy the career and the life of Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer."

Weldon reminded colleagues that he sat there during the 9/11 investigation and "watched a ridiculous situation develop with Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor under Bill Clinton."

"He walked into the National Archives before he was to testify before the 9/11 Commission looking through documents. He took documents out of the archives and stuffed them in his socks and pants so that no one would see them as he left the National Archives. Now, that is a felony, tampering with Federal documents and removing classified information that the 9/11 Commission needed to see.

"Sandy Berger initially lied about it. He said he did not do it. Then he admitted it, and he was given a punishment. And, oh, by the way, his security clearance was temporarily lifted, but he will get it back again, for lying, for stealing, and for committing an act of outrage against our country’s security. Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, a Bronze Star, 23-year military veteran, simply told the truth and now his life is being ruined."

Even as Weldon was speaking, came the news that Berger had been signed on as an advisor to the ABC television hit Commander in Chief, where he joins two other Clintonistas.

Meanwhile, was there a latter day Cain on the loose to target a brother Abel in the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction Able Danger story?

Perhaps Sandy Berger, the Clintons, the DIA really do know something that the rest of us don’t.

Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the media. A former Toronto Sun and Kingston Whig Standard columnist, she has also appeared on Newsmax.com, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and World Net Daily. Judi can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com. You can read your Letters to the Editor here.

So does anyone know anything about this? If it's true? If this article's just another Con Spin Job?

Why do we care about Sandy Berger

I wish all the Clintonites would crawl in a hole and disappear.

Between Bush41, clinton and Bush43 we should get all of them forever out of our conscience and know Al Gore would have been President for 10 years had Bill Clinton resigned. (like any honorable man who put the party before his overinflated big head, no legacy Bill Clinton didn't).

And if Rove is indicted, let's have people like Lee Atwater, Roger Stone, James Carvelle and Karl Rove forever out of politics. No more dirty tricksters in either party.

We should care about Sandy Berger because he did a stupid thing that he shouldn't have done. Things like that make it so we're calling the kettle black when we get outraged at the things Bush and the rest of them do. It was refreshing to hear Joe Scarborough be outraged about the Plame leak. People on both sides of the aisle need to be able to be objective, which means admitting fault on your own side as well as the other. What Sandy Berger did was wrong. What Bill Clinton did was wrong. We have to be able to acknowledge that or we have no credibility whatsoever.

Thank you!

Someone agreeing with me. We must tell people What Bill Clinton did was wrong. We take blame. Sandy Berger is wrong. Now lets move to 2005 and talk about George Bush.

Thank you. We must pass the word like that, so its not good cop/bad cop he did so we did type thing.

For the record, Sandy Berger pleaded guilty for this a long time ago. However, unlike the Plame case Berger had no malious intent, it was an simple error but he took responsibilty for it. As for Clinton, I don't think anyone ever defended him for having an affair and lying about it. The issue was whether that rose to a 'high crime' required to be an impeachable offense. Which of course it wasn't.

So Sandy Beger said it was an accident?

Why the heck doesn't the media cover any of this?

The media did cover it when it happened. However, I don't believe Berger "accidentally" stuffed those documents in his pants or whatever it was. I mean, really. :rolleyes:

Um, maybe he ran out of printer paper at home. :)

He just happened to put something relevant to himself and his boss down his pants

What was really stupid is, it was only a copy...they had the original elsewhere.

Yeah. I'm SURE it was an accident. ;)

The allegation that Berger stuffed papers down his pants and in his sox was right-wing spin.

Both the Daily Howler & Media Matters have written about this:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072204.shtml

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001?is_gsa=1&final=1

So let's not be repeating GOP propaganda people.

Okay, I guess I buy that, although I still think that someone with Berger's training would not "accidentally" put copies of classified documents into his briefcase. It's true, obviously, that if they were just copies, then sneaking them out would do no good as far as trying to destroy evidence. However, the fact remains that they're classified, and as such, I would assume that they are for certain eyes only and therefore shouldn't be brought out of the archives in copied or original form. I wouldn't expect Berger to be that sloppy.

Also, the fact that his attorney said what he said doesn't sway me. I mean, of course that's what his attorney said. He's certainly not going to say "my client removed some copies of classified documents by stuffing them in his socks and pants."

In any case, I'm going to give Berger the benefit of the doubt, but I still think it was a careless act, and I'd expect better of him.

Many who know him say that Berger is very sloppy. And when he worked in the White House his office was a disaster area. But what did Berger do afterwards, he owned up to what he had done, cooperated fully with the investigation and pleaded guilty to the charges. He didn't try to spin it or call it a partisan prosecution or in any way not take responsibility for what he had done. Nobody is perfect and if there were more people like Berger in Washington this country would be a better place.

Actually, I wouldnot mind if in the Gore administration, there was nobody who is considerred a Clinton person in any position.

As Harry Reid said, America, we could do better.

There are enough class people for every single position Al could put in.

Why start off with the smell of scandal? Just doesn't make any sense.