Replies

You ask me "Why are you so upset that Kerry and Berger got caught?"

I am glad Berger was caught if he was stealing documents. I have used the archives and know that the whole place is stuctured so that "accidents" can't happen. I just think exploiting the scandal for partisan purposes may damage our national security and hurt Bush's chances for re-election.

If classified information WAS put on Kerry's site, I don't like Al Qaeda to know the information was classified because it may help them.

I also think that this scandal may end up hurting Bush at the ballot box with independents because he may look like he is using the DOJ to hurt his opponent. That is the propaganda effect of McAuliff's FOI request--even if the request isn't honored. Indeed, because the story is coming out right before the Democratic Convention, the DOJ will look partisan if they charge Berger with mishandling the documents.

Bush can't defend himself by confirming the information on Kerry's site was compiled from classified documents. He would look reckless. Chambliss should not have implied that Kerry might be USING classified information. The Democrats will just demand he put his money where his mouth is; and if the website contained classified information, he can't confirm this.

I also believe in fairness.
If Kerry WAS using classified information on his site, this does not necessarily mean that he knew this was classified. Perhaps Berger took the materials home and, in addition to preparing his 9-11 testimony, consulted the documents in composing policy papers for the Kerry campaign. After all, he had ordered these documents written in the first place. That's why he was asked to use the archives and give the 9-11 Commission his testimony.

Even if Kerry's posted policies were not based on classified documentation, Kerry may have taken his link down because he heard about Berger's issues and was worried that the material might contain classified information. Or perhaps the DOJ told him the material was based on classified documents. Certainly the responsible thing to do was to quietly take them down even if he had no guilty knowledge.

I think it is difficult to say that just because Kerry's policies resemble a particular secret document, the document was the source. Berger is Kerry's advisor AND he was also the person who was in charge of creating these classified documents in the first place. OF COURSE the views will be similar. It is the same source--Berger.

I actually think it is more likely that Berger may have been checking the files for Clinton. It is bad enough to steal the documents so he can work at home. But a cumpulsive workaholic would be paranoid about returning what he had "borrowed." If stolen documents have disappeared (and Berger himself confirms that this is the case) that seems to me more than sloppy.

I think it is a huge leap to assume Kerry party to this.