Posted on 07/21/2004 7:20:16 PM PDT by snopercod
Politics: In poll after poll, Americans show a profound distrust of Democrats on national security. To understand why, look at the Sandy Berger affair.
Berger, you'll recall, formerly served as President Clinton's national security adviser and as John Kerry's chief adviser on security issues.
One would think the theft of classified documents from the National Archives last October would have elicited shock, dismay, concern, even anger from the former president.
But Clinton, told of the theft, had a different response. "We were all laughing about it," Clinton told the Denver Post.
He called Berger's actions a "nonstory" — in case the mainstream media didn't know what their marching orders were. The Kerry camp had a telling response: It blamed the Bush White House.
For his part, Berger termed the security lapse an "honest mistake."
Mistake, yes. Honest? We're not so sure. The idea Berger was somehow a klutzy innocent, as Clinton and Democratic National Committee spinmeisters say, doesn't wash.
It's not as if the thefts were a one-time thing; Berger made several trips to the National Archives as he prepared to testify before the 9-11 committee.
It's against the law to take secret documents from the archives. Someone as astute as Berger — a lawyer who stood atop the U.S. national security apparatus for four years — would know this.
Surely Berger remembered that his colleague, former CIA chief John Deutch, got into trouble for taking classified documents home on his personal computer. (He was later pardoned by Clinton.)
So what exactly did Berger take? Drafts of a March 2000 "after-action report," written by then-antiterrorism czar Richard Clarke, on the nation's response to terrorism threats before and during the millennium celebrations.
The final report harshly criticized the Clinton administration's anti-terror efforts and its failure to do more about al-Qaida.
That's bad enough. But because Berger threw out some of the drafts of that memo, we may never know just how bad.
Did the missing drafts show the Clinton administration knew even more about the terrorist threat than has been revealed? Did the Clinton team ignore al-Qaida's growing presence in the U.S.?
We do know this: Attorney General John Ashcroft revealed some of the memo's findings when he appeared before the 9-11 commission last April. It was pretty damning stuff.
Clarke's report, Ashcroft said, showed how vulnerable U.S. defenses were to terrorism. And it warned "of a substantial al-Qaida network and affiliated foreign terrorist presence in the U.S."
The memo also made some sound suggestions for improving our anti-terror efforts. Unfortunately, Clinton ignored them. He didn't even put them in his five-year national security plan.
The Berger affair says much about the Clinton White House's sloppiness and lack of concern for national security.
It may also help explain why Americans show so little faith in one major political party when it comes to protecting them from foreign threats.
Me thinks someone is going to take Sandy 'fishing' if this story gets longer legs.
Scott Peterson?
I find this very believable.
All your classified documents are belong to me!!!
(They're in my pants, actually)
All joking aside, who wants to take bets that this story is a non-starter in our fifth column news media. I mean really, those jerkoffs are cheering on this sort of deconstruction of our country.
I had a thought this afternoon about the leak.
The Dems are saying it was leaked to take away coverage from the convention.
But...was it leaked by the Dems at this particular time because the story will die once convention coverage starts...that's what I'm wondering.
This story won't last two more news cycles and be dead by this coming week end.
Nothing will happen to Sandy Berger, and it wouldn't surprise me if the news media spins it against Bush.
Just another example of Republicans not being able to play hard ball. A bunch of wussies.
In fact, what Berger did is violation of federal law, not some agency rules.
Sandy Berger is going to be under house arrest at some time in his future.
HA! scott peterson (allegedly)
You all think I'm nuts? Well who'd've ever guessed that dubya would give a glowing testimonial to Slick Willy like he did a few weeks ago?
Ok, who's brave enough to bet that Berger is not let off by this administration?
Very good questions. One would hope so, but we're dealing with bureaucrats on a limited budget. It's possible they were originals.
I believe O'Donnell knows what he is talking about because he is a democrat. This will be all over the place tomorrow.
It began with the vandals who spray-painted the EOB, put the porno-paper in the printers, and stole all the W keys from the keyboards.
"Me thinks someone is going to take Sandy 'fishing' "
I wrote a comment very similar but erased it - It was a mention about the "mis"-use of the acronym NSA for him.
It was giving the National Security Agency a bad name - if Berger had been with the NSA he probably would have had a fishing boat accident < Boom! > by now.
That's why it is imperative for Rep. Hastert to immediately call for Congressional hearings, preferably in August.
This cannot wait until next February, considering the implication it could have or not have on this year's elections.
The Democrats wanted to make the war against terror political. NOW they got their wish.
not if you hound your congressman to not drop the subject.
I already emailed my senators and will be writing soon, too.
squeeky wheels get greased.big pants get stuffed.
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.