You've got that right.
Even tho' Kerry deleted information about terrorist policy from his site, I don't think what Berger was up to involved Kerry. That is, I don't think Kerry had any classified papers from Berger. Naturally since Berger wrote or ordered these papers written in the first place, Kerry's site might reflect Berger's thinking.
I think that if Kerry had known about the investigation of Berger, he wouldn't have used him to write policy. Kerry was probably removing anything that could be from Berger to distance himself.
The fact that he just removed this information suggests to me he just found out about Berger's legal problems.
Today in the Washington Times there is an article that describes the paper the FBI is concerned about. Berger seems to be covering up something, not sharing it. I think what he was doing has more to do with protecting his own image or Clinton's.
Here is the link and a short quote
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
"Covering up?
U.S. officials tell us that the FBI is focusing on a single document in its investigation of former White House National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger. Investigators are trying to determine why Mr. Berger improperly removed a highly classified after-action report by Richard A. Clarke, an aide to Mr. Berger, that was harshly critical of the Clinton administration's response to the so-called millennium terrorist plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport and other targets in late 1999."
This article http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
describes the stolen paper that the FBI is focusing on.
In this secret paper, Clarke is very critical of Clinton.
However, when Clarke wrote his book and testified for the 9-11 Commission (about the same time his book was published) he praised Clinton and trashed Bush.
I think it is possible that Berger was trying to get rid of this paper because it would undercut Clarke and embarrass Clinton.
Clarke seems to have been two-faced: critical of Clinton in private and supportive of him in public. The paper is also going to be declassified and will undercut Clarke.
I don't think Berger was stealing these papers for Kerry.
Chambliss is going to be on FOX today. Perhaps he will be asked about Berger. I don't think he will allege that Kerry knowingly used classified information from Berger.
Bush may benefit from discrediting Clarke. If this scandal is used to smear Kerry without evidence, that may hurt Bush.
This link http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/23/14102.shtml
suggests that the story about Berger may have been leaked by former Clinton White House counsel Lanny Davis.
If the Democrats leaded this right before their own convention, perhaps they are going to blame the White House. McAuliff was really quick with his FOI request, which even if it isn't honored does embarrass the Administration by suggesting that they are using the DOJ against opponents.
That is why I think it is important not to take their bait. Bush would not be drawn out on the Berger scandal.
I think the Democrats are going to make it look like Bush is using the DOJ against his political enemies.
If a Clinton operative did this, perhaps he also wants to embarrass Kerry. Perhaps it is true that the CLintons don't want Kerry to win so that Hillary can run in four years.
I think that what Berger did was for for Clarke or the Clintons, not Kerry. The person suspected of leaking the Berger story, Clinton's lawyer Lanny Davis, is not pointing the fingers at White House motives. Here is a short extract about this theory and the link.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/23/14102.shtml
"Suspicions that Davis was the source of the Berger leak surfaced on Tuesday, when the National Review Online's Mark Levin noted in his column:
"Lanny Davis's tactics of leaking bad information in order to control the media spin is clearly in play, if not by him, by others. But he is now a prominent voice pointing a finger at purported Bush motives."