BTW, look at what newsmax resurrected:
The case of the pilfered Clinton terror files isn't the first time Sandy Berger has had to do some fancy rhetorical footwork to explain away the obvious.
In Sept. 2002, he flatly denied during sworn Congressional testimony that the government of Sudan had ever offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to his boss, Bill Clinton.
While Congress didn't press him on the details, Berger had a tougher time a few months later during an interview with WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, who grilled him on Clinton's Feb. 2002 admission that the Sudanese offer was indeed real. "I've seen [Clinton's] quote," he told Malzberg. "And I think at the time there was some examination of whether or not he could be held here if, in fact, we had an opportunity to get him. And the judgment was that we didn't have any basis to hold him here at that time."
But Berger insisted the Clinton administration's conclusion that it couldn't detain bin Laden "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese. "
"The Sudanese never offered to give him to the United States," he insisted. "This is something I've gone back to check very carefully on. No one knows of any such offer." When asked why the Clinton administration didn't press Sudan to release bin Laden to the U.S. after Saudi Arabia rejected a plan to have him sent there, Berger grew defensive.
"The Sudanese . . . had no intention of turning bin Laden over to someone who would have been hostile, period," he insisted. What about Clinton's admission to the contrary? No doubt it was just another case of what Berger might call "sloppiness
Clinton was interviewed by the "war slut" a week or so ago and when confronted with that confession Clinton gave to the Long Island Association in February 2002 said he must have "mispoken".
So they can do stuff accidentally and mispeak, but every time Bush does anything they don't like it's a lie.