Posted on 07/21/2004 12:25:33 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The law requires, and people of good conscience are obliged to assume, that former Clinton National Security Adviser and current Kerry for President foreign policy adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger is innocent of the crime of stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives. But inquiring minds are quivering with ferret-like anticipation, while Democratic and Republican politicians are digging their spikes into their respective starting blocks, as Washington is once again off to the scandal races.
As in all true Washington scandals, most of the commentators in politics and journalism come to the scandal predisposed to defend or eviscerate the subject. And, it wouldn't be a true Washington scandal if the subject was not "a good friend" or "a former colleague and good friend" of the commentator -- thus further reducing the chances for honest comment.
The story was first reported by the Associated Press on Monday evening by longtime, respected investigative reporter John Solomon, who characterized his sources as "officials and lawyers," which pretty much describes everyone in town over the age of 24.
The first line of rhetorical defense was laid down early Tuesday morning on the "Today Show" by metropolitico-journalist David Gergen -- former advisor or staffer to Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Clinton, and one of the designated wise men of Washington. "I think it's more innocent than it looks ... I have known Sandy Berger for a long time ... He would never do anything to compromise the security of the United States." Mr. Gergen added, "it is suspicious" that word of the investigation emerged just as the September 11 commission is about to release its report, since "this investigation started months ago."
This doubtlessly heartfelt defensive effort was actually slightly counterproductive. By asserting that it was more innocent than it looked, he let any doubters know that the events looked not innocent, even to friend David Gergen.
Moreover, as he didn't offer any hard evidence to justify his suspicion of innocence, he was left with offering evidence of good character -- which is marginally probative, but rarely persuasive in this age of so many fallen idols and clay-feeted men.
He simply asserted the point commonly argued in Pall Mall clubs in London in the 1950s during their plague of turncoat spies: "As a member of my club, he is a good chap, and a chap like that doesn't do a thing like that -- or if he does, he must have a bloody good reason for doing so." (NOTE: I am not even suggesting espionage or disloyalty of any sort by Mr. Berger. Such a thought is utterly absurd. I am only describing the clubby mentality that often drives well-born men of a certain type to defend their friends against the facts.)
Mr. Gergen's second line of defense became the pro-Berger talking point of the day: The timing of the story is "suspicious." Everybody from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle to noted expert Norm Ornstein suggested that the Bush administration must have leaked the story to take the edge off future bad news expected this Thursday when the September 11 Commission makes its final report.
There is, of course, as yet no evidence that the story was leaked at all. It may well have been the product of solid investigative reporting by an experienced investigative reporter.
But it muddies the waters nicely to suggest that the story is not about a top Democratic Party official possibly stealing and destroying classified documents that might show the Clinton administration to have been inept in fighting terrorism. The real story, according to this line of defense, is about a dirty trick by the Bush administration in leaking such a nasty story at such a convenient time. Either alternative is quite possible -- and quite irrelevant to the seriousness of the charges.
The leak is to Washington what the potato was to Ireland -- the staff of life, the thing that gives energy to human activity. Without the leak the Washington Post would be three pages long, CBS's "60 Minutes" would be 60 seconds, most of us in Washington would have to get an honest job -- and America would be none the worse.
But although both parties and all politicians and journalists traffic daily in leaks -- when your chap is hit by one, you scream like a stallion in heat at the sheer unfairness of it all. Real scandals roll on -- long after those defensive screams have faded into the long night.
But if the Democrats are in a defensive crouch, the Republicans are in a fine state of indignation. Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert quickly upped the ante Tuesday afternoon. He was "profoundly troubled." "What could those documents have said?" "What information could be so embarrassing?" "Did those documents contain something more sinister?" "Mr. Berger has a lot of explaining. The American people and 9/11 families want the truth, not a cover-up."
As close friends of mine have, in the past, been unfairly slandered (and had their golden careers truncated) by fraudulent Washington scandals, I honestly express no opinion about the Berger Affair. He may well, as he claims, be guilty of nothing worse than sloppiness. All people who care about this matter should await the complete unfolding of the facts before reaching judgment -- but you should be aware that while truth may be a byproduct of the scandal process, it is not the objective of either side in this nasty Washington blood sport.
He may be guilty of nothing more than poor judgment but people who display poor judgment are exactly the people we don't want to see entrusted with our national security.
Guilty of poor judgement? Honest Mistake?
Gee, its the incompetence defense! And its easy to swallow on the surface, since the Clinton regime was saturated with grifting sleazy "Friends of Bill" whose lasting legacy is not one of meritious public service, but is one of child snatching, diversinary bombing of asprin factories, and jailhouse bound thugs.
But, lifting secret documents from a room from which none can be removed? Naah, its no mistake.
If he was actually stuffing things into his pants and/or socks he is guilty of far more than "poor judgment".
If there is video of this, he's so done.
My guess is Tony B. didn't grow up on a farm.
Aw, have a heart, RT. The wind came through the window and blew papers off the table and into Sandy's socks and bvd's. Of course, he didn't notice since he's got more important things on his mind.
So far it seems that the main documents missing are the drafts for the after-action report written by Richard Clarke and later "refined" by the Clinton Administration. I am curious as to why Berger specifically chose to pocket and totally lose those documents. Hmmm...are there signficant differences in conclusion and/or emphasis between the drafts and the final version of the report that Clarke and the Clinton Administration put out? Inquiring minds want to know...Berger doesn't seem like the type of person to just simply make a rash decision and shove questionable documents in his pants, socks, and briefcase. I am sure that he probably deliberated such options prior to going to the National Archives annex in Maryland.
Also, I find it curious that every news source thus far have given out the information that it is "believed" that copies of the draft still exist at the National Archives. Are they getting this information directly from Archives personnel? If so, I think that someone is bluffing. With classified documents, they are either there or not. Especially by this point in time, that information should be confirmed by now. I think that copies of the drafts do not actually exist. Did Berger know this? Inquiring minds want to know...(I know I stated this on another thread)
On another thread someone though there was video !
The National Archives states that they use surveillance cameras. (or words to that effect)
"Research Room Rules
Paper and pencils are provided to researchers. Researchers may bring approved loose paper research notes, hand-held wallets and/or coin purses into research rooms, but those items are subject to inspection when researchers enter or leave the research complex.
Researchers may not bring enclosures such as briefcases, boxes, satchels, valises, purses, or other large containers into the research rooms. Lockers are available for which quarter is required that is refunded when the locker key is returned. The lockers are emptied nightly. Rules for Using Historical Records in the National Archives [GIL 57], available through Fax-on-Demand or by calling the general reference number, gives additional research room rules.
Security
Electronic surveillance is in use."
I'm sick and tired of Democrats breaking the law and getting away with it. Republicans should grow spines and demand that he be charged.
Whimps? Quislings.
well, thats what I was thinking - a "mistake" is spilling a coke on them and wiping them off and inadvertantly collecting all the papers and mistakenly placing them in your case. Stuffing them in your shorts and socks is a conscious effort to evade discovery and decieve those charged with oversight of the documents.
It sounds though, as if everyone knew stuff was disappearing and they numbered the docs -
Even more frustrating though will be watching the repubs totallydrop this huge huge issue after a few days - only to be forgotten
.......which makes them complicit IMO
Bush has made it clear he wouldnt pursue Clintons nonsense from the onset - I cant imagine that attitude will change
I am hearing a tone from all pub commentators on this issue that sounds like a memo went out to softpedal, underplay,etc comments of accusation.
I am thinking of Senators stepping up to the cameras yesterday, Bush campaign official this morning on the radio with Steve Malzberg, and this article by Tony Blankley.
Are you reading/hearing this same theme, JH?
I've heard some Siamese cats scream while in heat, but they were all female.
I don't think he's getting away with much. His career is already in ruins, and Kerry has now lost all of his foreign policy advisors except for Michael Moore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.