Sandy Berger

[Jack Funk]

I surprises me that this hasn't been brought up already. It seem that President Clintons National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, is the focus of a criminal investigation surrounding his unauthorized removal of classified documents from the National Archives. Additionally, some of these documents are now missing. Some of them were written by Richard Clark.
Here is a Washington Post article:

Sandy Berger scandal

Smells like a coverup to me. One must wonder what the Clinton administration and Berger have to hide for someone of his background and experience to commit such an act.

[dmc]

Probably more important than Berger's former Clinton affiliation is his - now - former Kerry affiliation. This doesn't look good, but I can't imagine it will make any big difference for Kerry in the upcoming election.

[Death Rabbit]

I too am interested in this story. On the surface, it looks like a major blunder. Smells rather crooked. But I think I'll reserve judgement until I hear a detailed explanation from both sides. I'm tempted to believe it really was just an honest mistake as Berger claims, considering his reputation for not only integrity, but for being one of the more hawkish members of any Democratic administration.

But there's one big question that's making my bulls*** detector go off.

Why now? This happened last year. Are we to believe this is merely a coincidence that we're hearing about this right as the 9/11 commission report comes out?

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

My understanding was the investigation was ongoing. It started in October 2003. Supposedly, it is coming out now, because one of the investigators "spilled the beans" so to speak. I do not know if it was intentionally or unintentionally leaked.

[Jack Funk]

I'm glad it came out now. It brings the 9/11 commission findings into question. Did they have all relevant info?

Additionally, it is a good thing for Kerry. He now has time to deal with the fallout and distance himself from Berger. Apparently, he didn't know about it.

I think it is disingenuous of people question the timing of the leak. I think we should be questioning the timing of Mr. Bergers actions. Again, it sure smells like a coverup.

@DR - Honest mistake? With his experience in foreign affairs? No way. And if his head IS that far up his ass, then was he doing as National Security Advisor?

Once again, our government lets us down. The stench is overwhelming.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

AFAIK, the papers in question regarded U.S. security of the millenium celebration. What does that have to do with 9/11? Sure, it was looking into a terrorist plot, but if there was a terrorist attack planned for that day, it obviously didn't occur.

[Death Rabbit]

@DR - Honest mistake? With his experience in foreign affairs? No way. And if his head IS that far up his ass, then was he doing as National Security Advisor?

In a way, you just answered your own question. He was smart enough to attain such a position - do you really think, if he was doing something deliberately illegal, that he'd be that careless? It's precisely the sloppiness with which it was done that leads me to believe it was a simple mistake. If it were something nefarious he would have covered his tracks better and been less obvious about it. There's still no evidence either way to suggest that what was taken were copies or originals.

And there's nothing disingenuous about questioning the timing of the leak when we have an administration who seems to have no problem leaking sensitive information whenever it's politically expediant for them to do so. Need I site examples of this trend?

If this is a coverup and Berger was trying to cover for the mistakes of the Clinton administration, I believe it is imparative for our safety that we know about it. But the fact that this looks so sloppy kind of rules out a cover up, if you ask me. Usually nefarious criminal activity doesn't involve shoving things down one's pants. Or so the rumors say. I personally think this will blow over in the next few weeks.

One more thing, @ Jack

I'm glad it came out now. It brings the 9/11 commission findings into question. Did they have all relevant info?

To answer this question, I give you the members of the 9/11 commission...

DOBBS: Let me ask you, not necessarily directly on point, but certainly related. Sandy Berger, the former head of the national security -- national security adviser under the Clinton administration, accused of, and admitting taking classified documents from the National Archives, those notes, whether copies or originals still unclear. Did the commission review that material, to what -- can you shed any light on what happened there? Slade Gorton, first.

GORTON: Well, we can't shed any light on exactly what happened there and on Sandy Berger's troubles with the Justice Department and the Archives. What we can say unequivocally is we had all of that information. We have every one of those documents. All of them have -- are infused in and are a part of our report.

DOBBS: So the commission was denied no information as a result of whatever Sandy Berger did or did not do at the National Archives?

GORTON: That's precisely correct.

GORELICK: And we have been so assured by the Justice Department.

Dobbs, Gorton & Gorelick
Lou Dobbs Tonight

Is the 9/11 Commission still in question now, Jack?

[ July 23, 2004, 15:36: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

[Chandos the Red]

Once again, our government lets us down. The stench is overwhelming.

Absolutely right. This is the kind of action that undermines our confidence in our government officials. It tends to make one cynical and leads one into the feeling that "they are all crocked anyway, so why bother" mentality. To see a government official entrusted with the public welfare, stuffing his pants with official documents is sickening.

But DR is right to give anyone the benefit of a doubt and the right to explain himself. I can't wait to hear this full explanation though.

The 9/11 commission was a political committee, with a political agenda, which in the end produced a purely political document. This is not the "final report." The one on the Bush White House and 9/11 is not going to be completed until after the November election - what a surprise.

[ July 23, 2004, 17:49: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

[Jack Funk]

@DR - Yes, the commission is still in question. Not all of the missing documents have been recovered, so how do they know they had what is missing? You seem desperate to minimize this. Stop playing Red team vs. Blue team for a minute and look at the entire government as a whole. They screwed up. Again. To claim that it is the result of sloppiness, on two occasions (that we know of), is weak. If it truly was caused by sloppiness, then why did he hold such a critical position, and what other sloppiness may have occured while he held it?

But the fact that this looks so sloppy kind of rules out a cover up, if you ask me. Usually nefarious criminal activity doesn't involve shoving things down one's pants.

Really? Seems Nixon was sloppy enough to make secret tape recordings and leave them around. Edited or otherwise.

EDIT: This just in. The following editorial, while slanted, quotes the 9/11 commission findings regarding Berger. It seems he nixed attacks on Bin Laden. Take it for what it is worth:
editorial quoting 9/11 commission

[ July 23, 2004, 19:26: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Not all of the missing documents have been recovered, so how do they know they had what is missing?

They know what is missing Jack. If they didn't have backup copies of things, they would never be able to know what was or was not there. How would they know two documents weren't there if they didn't have a way to check? Besides - this goes back to events of the 2000 milenium celebration. It has NOTHING to do with the current administration or the terrorist attacks, and therefore should not affect the campaign or the commission's findings in any way. Berger is no longer on Kerry's staff, he was never on Bush's staff, and his wrongdoings occur when he wasn't working for either of them.

So I'm kind of with DR on this one - what's the problem? This isn't even remotely a political issue beyond how it should affect Berger's future career, if indeed he has one.

They screwed up. Again.

Who does "they" refer to in this context? The only person I see who screwed up was Berger. And unless you are talking about the two documents separately, I don't see how it was "again" either.

[Death Rabbit]

Not all of the missing documents have been recovered, so how do they know they had what is missing?

I don't know - ask the commission. They and the JD have had the last 9 months to figure that out. Since the report has been published and both parties are satisfied that the investigation wasn't significantly compromised by Berger's actions, that's good enough for me. The findings of the commission stand, and are as even-handed in their criticisms as I'd hoped they'd be.

As for Berger - if he is indeed guilty, I hope he pays for it. Whether he was just a sloppy researcher, or covering up for Clinton (or himself), a crime's a crime. Malicious intent or no, if guilty, I hope they send him to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. But there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to suggest such - yet. This happened almost a year ago, and he hasn't even been charged. That suggests the case against him is weak at best. But right now the whole thing is essentially beltway gossip, so again - I'm reserving judgement till all the facts are out. You're free to draw your own conclusions, and apparantly you have.

You seem desperate to minimize this.

And you seem desperate to point out wrongdoing on the part of the Democrats and/or smear the Kerry camp. Ya know, as long as we're playing the "you seem desparate to _______" game.

[Jack Funk]

It's a political issue because he was so heavily involved in Kerrys campaign. Just like Joe Wilson.

And you seem desperate to point out wrongdoing on the part of the Democrats and/or smear the Kerry camp.

Funny, I pointed out in my second post that I was happy for Kerry that this came out now while he still had time to deal with it.

Like I said, try, for one minute, to quit with the Red Team vs. Blue Team nonsense. I'm not partisan, are you? I'm an independent libertarian.

Perhaps it is just Berger. Senility. Paranoia on my part. The men in black will probably be picking me up any time now.

What's the point trying to discuss this here? If this had been someone affiliated with either of the Bush cabinets, there would be two pages of responses decrying the criminal president. To me, it makes no difference. My government screws me again. I don't care what party they are from.

/me - wanders back out of the alley.

[ July 23, 2004, 19:47: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

[Death Rabbit]

What's the point trying to discuss this here? If this had been someone affiliated with either of the Bush cabinets, there would be two pages of responses decrying the criminal president.

/me - wanders back out of the alley.

/me hands Jack a box of tissues on his way out the door.

Gimme a break. No one is attacking you, no one is being irrational, no one is calling you paranoid. If you want to discuss this, let's discuss this. Don't second guess my arguements. If this happened to a Bush staffer, and the same weak-ass charges were being leveled against him, I would have the exact same reaction. I too want justice for a crime, but I refuse to jump to conclusions when the facts are still NOT out. You stated your case, I respectfully disagreed with it. Grow a thicker skin, Jack.

[Jack Funk]

I went out of my way to make it clear that I didn't see this as a partisan issue (see my second post). You accused me of trying to "smear the Kerry campaign". Quite to the contrary, see my second post.

I thought you refused to jump to conclusions.

[Death Rabbit]

The point was that you presumed I was "desperate to minimize this." I wasn't. You demanded I stop playing "Red Team vs. Blue Team," presuming that's what I was doing. I wasn't. You brought up that this is an issue "because he's so heavily involved with Kerry's campaign." Since you were assigning me all these intentions that I clearly never had, I felt like pointing out the absurdity of your acusation that I have a partisan angle here by pointing out the appearance of your own (hence the "game" comment), regardless of your magical "second post."

Again - I don't care why Berger did it, or for whom he did what. You obviously think he's guilty of wrongdoing here. The government "screwed you again." Fine. I don't see it that way - YET. Is it so hard to understand that I don't think there's much of a story here? And that if I don't, I'm not trying to "minimize" anything? Jesus.

Just forget it.

ps - "Smells like a coverup to me. One must wonder what the Clinton administration and Berger have to hide for someone of his background and experience to commit such an act."

Not a single charge has been filed, and already, to you, he's guilty of "committing such an act." One must wonder "what they have to hide." You went out of your way, alright.

[Jack Funk]

@DR

You brought up that this is an issue "because he's so heavily involved with Kerry's campaign."

After you accused me of "smearing the Kerry campaign". You can't even get the order of reponses correct. Sheesh.
It was in response to Aldeths assertion that this wasn't a political issue. Since he was involved with the Kerry campaign while under investigation by the FBI, it is a political issue.

I'll restate for those who don't want to read all of the posts: I AM AN INDEPENDENT LIBERTARIAN. I am happy to attack whatever office drops the ball. PLEASE, don't accuse me of being in the Bush camp or trying to smear Kerry. I am just an unaffiliated American disgusted by another government official doing something they aren't supposed to be doing.

Regardless, we are off topic, dissecting each others posts. I'll just chalk it up to another fruitless day in the Alley.

[Death Rabbit]

I am just an unaffiliated American disgusted by another government official doing something they aren't supposed to be doing.

As am I. If wrongdoing is proven to have occured, I wish Berger a big, burly bull-queer roommate when he gets to prison. But no wrongdoing HAS been proven, and the case to prove said wrongdoing is weak at best. Until that simple fact changes, I reserve my judgement of him. You've already decided to pass judgement, which you have every right to I suppose. But I disagree, and I'm quite certain I have a right to.

Which has been my point the whole time, and you've decided to ignore it.

[Chandos the Red]

Regardless, we are off topic, dissecting each others posts. I'll just chalk it up to another fruitless day in the Alley.

I think this was a topic that needed to be brought up, so it's not fruitless. And I think what Death Rabbit is saying is that Berger is entitled to his day in court, and with that I agree whole-heartedly. But again, this board is not a court of law and is mostly a place where members can express their opnions, so in that I think Jack's opinions on Berger are highly relevant also. As a citizen Jack has a right to demand answers and to state his disaproval in an open forum when those answers appear as weak as they are. Berger claims that he thought he was taking only copies. I find it hard to believe that he can't tell a copy from an orginal document that he authored himself.

But it is also my understanding, Jack, that Berger was only serving in an unofficial capacity to Kerry. But I'm not sure how deeply that unofficial title takes him into Kerry's circle. Also, I'm not really that big into the "guilt by association" genre either. At the same time if Kerry wants to play the credibility card, it is important to his cause that he surrounds himself with people whose credibility can't be questioned.

[ July 24, 2004, 00:29: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

[Death Rabbit]

At the risk of firing up a rousing new session of Red Team vs. Blue Team, my desparation to minimize a non-issue compells me to post this. I hope I can be forgiven.

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archi...ex.html#003374

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record.

The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.

Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.

That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.

Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. "We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw," and "nothing was missing," he said.

---
It would have been nice for Tom DeLay, Duncan Hunter, and Dennis Hastert to withhold judgment for just a week or two before accusing Berger of deliberately pilfering documents and endangering national security for the purposes of covering up alleged intelligence snafus by the Clinton administration. And I wonder if Tom Davis will follow through with his "investigation" of Berger's dastardly deeds, now that the political usefulness of such a probe seems diminished.

This development doesn't leave Berger entirely in the clear -- it appears he still removed photocopies of classified material from the archives, and that's wrong. But I do think the commission's comments militate against the motives ascribed by Berger's critics. It looks more and more like this was an honest mistake, although, again, not one that should be taken likely.

My thesis, summed up quite nicely, in bold.

[Chandos the Red]

Well, that is interesting. It's getting harder to get any kind of reliable news on anything these days. But the story died a pretty quick death. I guess there just wasn't enough "juice" to keep it flowing. Also, if I had known that Delay was somehwere at the bottom of this story, I would have suspected it to be the kind of smear mongering it may yet turn out to be.

[Jack Funk]

This should probably be moved to AOLS.
Views of Dick Morris (formerly Clintons top political adivisor)

Interesting read.

[dmc]

Interesting, but it's so hard to take anything found in the New York Post seriously. I am preparing for a trial, so I don't have time to chase this stuff down -- but I will later.

Thanks Jack.

[Ragusa]

I agree with the part of the New York Post. It's overpriced toilet paper.

As for Mr. Berger. As a security advisor to the president he should have taken secrecy much more serious and when he violated secrecy regulations that was misconduct and for that he should be punished accordingly - if that's the rule and not the exception.
For some reason there are politicos who aren't punished for such lapes. If he gets some beating, it'll be a slap on the wrist, much to the dismay of the professional intelligence community.