Thursday, December 21, 2006
Sandy Berger in the dark of the night
Every few months, former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is back in the news, and every few months we are reminded of the same mystery: why did he swipe classified documents from the National Archives, why did he destroy them, and why did the Bush administration's Justice Department let him off the hook with a slap on the wrist? Now we have reason to believe that he obstructed justice, too:
Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday.
The report was issued more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removal of the documents.
Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that when Berger was confronted by Archives officials about the missing documents, he said it was possible he threw them in his office trash.
It is also possible that all the oxygen molecules in a room will randomly travel to one side, but that doesn't make it believable even to the stupidest reporter in the Washington press corps.
Ordinarily, such disrespect for law enforcement would merit a charge of obstruction of justice. Berger, however, seems to have gotten off with essentially no punishment. Recall that for all of this Berger was fined $50,000 -- which is probably his standard honorarium for one speech -- sentenced to 100 hours of community service, and barred from access to classified material for three years, during all of which the Republicans were in the White House anyway. He will be free to handle classified material in the next Democratic administration, whenever that may be.
The question is, why is the government treating Sandy Berger -- who stole classified documents that the 9/11 Commission needed to see, hid them under a trailer, retrieved them, destroyed them, and was at least careless with the truth -- with such kid gloves? The answer can only be that he knows something that (i) reflects very poorly on the Bush administration or (ii) would damage national security if revealed, and he threatened to reveal it unless he got an unbelievably good deal. Given all that has already been revealed about both the Bush administration and our counterterrorism operations, Berger must be sitting on some pretty amazing secret to have cowed a Republican Justice Department into such a light sentence.
As I've written before, if you are an ambitious investigative reporter in the Washington press corps, it really does smell as though there is a huge story here that remains to be told. One thing is obvious, though: If, say, Henry Kissinger had done a similar thing during the Carter years or James Baker had stolen classified documents during the Clinton administration, there is exactly no possibility that the national media wouldn't be all over the story like bugs on a bumper.
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Dec 20, 11:28:00 PM:
Oh come, now.
Who doesn't on occasion take secret information that isn't rightfully their's? And who among us hasn't transported sensitive materials in our pants for safekeeping (side note - I don't care for puns, but it's hard to resist this one)? And who doesn't then usually hide those documents under construction trailers for safe keeping for a while? And which one of us can honestly say that we haven't destroyed those documents upon questioning?
Let he who is without sin, etc. I submit to you that Sandy Berger is a reflection of all of us. He is, in no small way, the every man. We can't condemn Sandy Berger for this because then we are really just condemning ourselves.
We are Sandy Berger.
(Incidentally, is it readily apparent that I've seen Animal House recently?)
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Thu Dec 21, 02:08:00 AM:
Why he was soooo scatterbrained he just accidentally dropped'em under that trailer.
Right. I'm hoping someone held back on a few federal charges so he can be put on trial again.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Dec 21, 08:07:00 AM:
Pretty fishy, that Berger. There's certainly some mystery here.
But I'm commenting to take issue with the ridiculous canard: "If _____ (insert Republican person) had done something like this when _________ (insert Democratic President) was in charge, the media would have been all over it".
Nonsense. Even now, the EPA is destroying documents despite calls from Democrats for them to stop. Is this big news? Yes. Is it reported as such? No.
It's not some Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, Hawk. Anyone who's been watching the news over the course of the Bush years can tell you that much.
Anyway, I'd like to see us put the "If _____ (insert Republican person) had done something like this when _________ (insert Democratic President) was in charge, the media would have been all over it" to bed. No more.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Dec 21, 08:08:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Thu Dec 21, 08:37:00 AM:
Don't worry TH, I caught your hat tip to C.W. McCall. Well done.
And Screwy, two words for you: Valerie Plame.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Dec 21, 12:24:00 PM:
I have a slightly different theory. I doubt Berger has anything in particular on Bush. I simply think Clinton and Bush have gone above and beyond the call of duty in refraining from criticizing one another about the pre 9/11 mgmt of al qaeda. Chances are the stuff Berger had made some recommendations which, post 9/11, look embarrassing. Maybe they were documents which suggested a conciliatory approach, or which criticized the idea of kidnapping or killing Osama. Who knows. But rest assured that it must have looked bad post 9/11. Think of it as being the analog to Clark's more aggressive recommendations.
Generally, both administrations have not picked on one another for pre 9/11 policy which, with the benefit of hindsight, was, of course, too lenient viz. al qaeda. Similarly, the Clintons have not been aggressive in their critique of post 9/11 Bush Admin policy, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I think letting Berger off the hook is a continuation of that set of "good manners." It irritates partisans among us, but probably amounts to not much in the great scheme of things.
I think it is also a reflection of the facts that politics, partisanship and the MSM are all about the entertainment business, but foreign policy is actually the real deal, and consistent in its development and execution between the parties, as long as you don't select extreme folks from either side. It is pretty clear that Bush and Clinton view each other as centrists, and 2 sides of the same coin.
One man's theory.
By , at
Thu Dec 21, 01:03:00 PM:
Calling it a "ridiculous canard" doesn't make it any less true. The Berger story has been woefully under-reported.
John (blogger isnt letting me sign in)
By , at
Thu Dec 21, 02:03:00 PM:
Can't wait for Berger's book: What I Would Have Written In Those Secret Notes If I Had Written In Them.
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Dec 21, 03:36:00 PM:
Nobody (in their right mind) would risk many years at Club Fed to avoid a minor embarrassment or accusations of ineptness.
You take that kind of risk when the information could send you to Club Fed.
By , at
Thu Dec 21, 06:08:00 PM:
Remember the secret daily breifings about AQ and OBL, that Clinton pulled from his archives, but were not known to the incoming administration? Remember the weak attempt at arguing that the Bush team was actually brought up to speed on AQ, etc.? I do, and the fact that the scope and breadth of preparing for the WH transition was to pull W's off keyboards and steal the "gifts" to the WH.
Which is to say ... Berger fell on the sword to protect his boss's legacy. Plain and simple. The simple facts about how he went about doing it (asking for privacy to make a call, accidently losing the documents in his panties, etc.) tell a story of a wilfull attempt to liberate these originals from the archives.
By , at
Thu Dec 21, 09:56:00 PM:
I also disagree that criticism of the media for selective/biased reporting is a canard. Valerie Plame is, as mentioned above, is a good example of this case in point. Go to http://ratherbiased.com/ for more examples.
People on the left and right will both spin history and the facts their own way but the media is strongly dominated by the left. Its selective/biased coverage is a shame journalists would feel if they paused in their attempts to manipulate the public's thinking.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Dec 21, 10:28:00 PM:
Screwy doesn't like it because it creates too much cognitive dissonance. He is reduced to claiming that EPA documents are of equal import to presidential briefings.
At least you tried to give a counterexample - that's something.
By allen, at
Thu Dec 21, 10:39:00 PM:
While Mr. Berger’s vandalism would, in my mind, be worthy of the sentence of hand scrubbing the floors of the National Archives for the rest of his natural life, in homage to the history pilfered, were his actions a threat to national security?
Mr. Berger’s crime certainly provides a diversion from the war and it does offer another opportunity to take a shot at the Clinton administration. Both may be therapeutic. However, on net, is Mr. Berger more than a irritating (albeit amusing) pimple on the rump of the Republic?
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Dec 22, 10:12:00 AM:
Oh jeebus.
If you really need more evidence that the press is biased towards ratings a lot more than it is towards the left, how about noticing the run-up to the war in Iraq, when there were almost no competing voices.
I was one of those Americans marching in protest on Washington before the war was launched. We were ridiculed and ignored. We were also right.
Further, the explosion of the blogosphere is more evidence that the corporate media has been falling down on the job in the eyes of both sides of the political spectrum. And it's the lefty blogosphere that's enjoyed the faster, larger growth. Why? Because of all that lefty journalism? Yeah, right.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Dec 22, 10:54:00 AM:
Screwy - About what exactly were you "right"?:
1) That Saddam was a genocidal tyrant with rapist, genocidal heirs?
2) That Saddam had infiltrated and corrupted the UN all the way up to the Secretary General?
3) That he had violated without penalty 17 UN resolutions?
4) That he had housed, trained and supported leading global terrorists from Abu Nidal to Abu Musab Al Zarqawi?
5) That he had precipitated a war with us in 1991 which had not been concluded, but subjected only to a cease fire which he had violated countless times?
6) That he had fully executed 2 WMD programs which had been stymied first by Israel action at Osirak and American action in PG I, and had initiated the reconstitution of a 3rd such program?
7) That he had used WMD against the Kurds in Iraq and the Iranians?
8) That he had conducted a campaign of rape, genocide and looting in Kuwait during the (brief) period of Iraqi hegemony over Kuwait?
9) That through Smoali interlocuters his intelligence services had negotiated an understanding of sorts with OBL's al qaeda?
And that you were therefore protesting American military action in Iraq?
Were you suggesting it would be impossible to end Saddam's regime? Or extinguish Zarqawi? Or negotiate with the leading Shi'ite cleric, Sistani? Or create a democratic and constitutional Iraq?
Tell me what you were protesting? And what were you "right about? That it would be tough? Like Iwo Jima tough? Or Battle of the Bulge tough?
You arrogant wuss. You think you are a brave soul for protesting in Washington? Please. Go protest in Tehran. Or Beijing. Or even Moscow. Give me a break. While you are bravely marhcing down the incredibly dangerous Pennsylvania Avenue, there are 20 year olds marching on patrols in Baghdad and Haditha. Please spare me your historical cluelessness, your utter arrogance and your reactionary defense of sadistic murderers. I am trying to enjoy the holiday season and celebrate the 62nd anniversary of General McAuliffe's response to the German surrender offer. Nuts. Nuts to you, Screwy.
By skipsailing, at
Fri Dec 22, 02:28:00 PM:
My goodness CP, I hate it when you hold back.
Oh and I completely agree. I don't know when the left abadonned its focus on improving the human condition and began worshipping the god of stability.
Since war is not the answer and only war will relieve the grinding oppression experienced by many on the planet, well those poor bastards will have to suffer in silence.
Hence Screwy's protest: the prime directive for the left is clear.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Dec 22, 08:26:00 PM:
"the prime directive for the left is clear"
Well yeah... oppose the Right.
By , at
Fri Dec 29, 02:08:00 PM:
very site
http://www.moviespoint.org/
