Posted on 07/27/2004 8:54:56 AM PDT by Liz
The news media’s treatment of Sandy Berger’s removal of highly classified documents from the National Archives remarkably focuses on the timing of the leak, casting aspersions on the White House. It’s not the first time Democrats have shown that manipulating their friends in the press is as easy as beating chimps at chess.
Here's what the remarkably incurious press, which has left its thinking caps at the Bien Pensant Bar and Grill, overlooks:
The leak was to the very same reporter Clinton spin doctor Lanny Davis used during the Clinton Administration. Who was Davis? None other than the public relations whiz kid who knew how to get bad news out of the way for Clinton at a time and place of his choosing, so the story could be spun away.
And a closer look at Davis’s book, Truth to Tell: Tell it Early, Tell It All, Tell It Yourself: Notes from My White House Education, sets out the road map. He told all about how he did it back then. And now with this flap, asked point blank if he leaked the story, Davis first punted, not denying it and noted only that had he known of this last October he'd have advised Berger to leak it then. In a later interview, he did deny being the source of the leak, though.
But the press hints breathlessly that since some people in the National Security Council and the White House legal office have been (necessarily) informed, they must be the sources of leaks.
Really?
Here are some other people who knew:
-Clinton repeatedly said he and his friends "all" knew about this for month and were "laughing" about it. If they "all" took this so lightly, why would they go to great lengths to keep it secret? And knowing Clinton, was this "all" a small group? Could no one in this group of "all" have had personal animus toward Berger ? Was there not a single one jockeying for his spot in the Kerry camp?
-People at the National Archives knew of this, too. How many? And how many did they divulge this to?
-The 9/11 Commission was informed. And based on its record, it’s been as leaky as a wet brown bag.
-The Prosecutors Office (including support staff) knew.
-And most notably, Berger knew for almost a year. He is the single person who controlled absolutely when this was made public, wasn't he? He could have revealed this at any time.
Now, for the timing: Some interesting unexamined possibilities emerge here about why it was leaked when, too.
The 9/11 Commission completed its report under conditions that dictated that members couldn't question Berger about the theft of classified records they had requested of the Archives, without reopening the hearing. This, after it relied on his testimony. (This fact would have certainly affected his credibility.)
It was leaked after Clinton testified in Berger’s and in yet another Clinton spin doctor’s presence, Bruce Lindsey's. Those were the only two men we are certain knew of the investigation at that time.
It was leaked just before the Democratic Convention, when whatever press attention not directed at the Commission Report was likely to be directed there.
Now, analyze how the White House must have seen this: When would it have been more useful for the White House to leak this sordid tale? Answer: At almost any date after Berger was caught with the documents in his pants.
And there were plenty of possibilities:
-When 9/11 Commission members, Richard ben Veniste and Sen. Bob Kerrey were grandstanding.
-When former NSC aide Richard Clarke (“Against All Enemies") was massaging the truth to sell his book.
-When ex-ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV ("Politics of Truth") was lying to sell his book.
-When Berger himself was tap-dancing for the Commission -- which nevertheless noticed that on four occasions, beginning with the Millennium Documents – that he had restrained the Clinton Administration from destroying Osama bin Laden.
And there are others:
-When Clinton was testifying to the Commission.
-When Bush was testifying.
In short, it’s a very long list. And more to the point, the story is not the timing. Such a claim could be made any time this story came out in this hotly contested election year. And if it wasn't a White House leak, the implications for the unity of the Kerry camp are hardly auspicious. If this crew takes office and handles national security matters as Berger did, the nation is at risk.
Which returns us to the issue at hand: it is the outrageous conduct of Sandy Berger, a man Kerry held in such high regard his name was floated as a likely Secretary of State nominee if Kerry wins.
If the story is about timing, the gullible purveyors of this spin have nevertheless failed to show why the leak came from the White House or what motive anyone there would have for leaking it at this time.
The real story is the self-destructive behavior of the press, which is willing to dump whatever shred of credibility it retains to help a man who is gullible enough to put his faith in Clarke and Wilson and Berger.
Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC
How low the Dim standards are. This highly (gag) regarded individual never told Kerry he was under criminal investigation for stealing classified documents.
Another clue as to who leaked: It was leaked on a Tues. If the DNC had leaked it on Fri. it would have Clinton fingerprints all over it so they leaked it on Tuesday.
Wow. Interesting reasoning.
BTTT
Unbelievable lack of loyalty... how can he ever be trusted again by anyone but Bill Clinton... who apparently has been aware of this all along.
Kerry just said in Norfolk that he wants the 9-11 commission to go back to work and finish it's business immediately... maybe that is a good idea if they can take up the Sandburglar's actions as there first order of business... get him to testify under oath as to what happened and why...
We have a woman missing, get your priorities straight people!! sarcasm off
Under oath? Please..... oaths, laws, rules, regulations, our constitution, etc, mean nothing to these criminals.
I am going to be very upset if this whole story quietly goes away. Right now it is being managed by the Clinton Spin Machine, which has almost succeeded in making it disappear. I am hoping that Bush's (in)famous "New Tone" does not extend to letting a criminal skate, especially one who has undoubtedly compromised national security (to say nothing of making the entire National Archives look pretty dubious), and that Berger is charged soon.
I am hoping that the length of this investigation indicates that not only Berger, but the persons who permitted him to get away with this (as well as the one who no doubt initially asked him to do it) will be prosecuted as well. Then maybe the press won't be able to ignore it.
The "real story" is both the behaviour of the press and the gullibility (or lying?) of Senator Kerry...
Good article...thanks for posting!
I'd say six of one, half a dozen of the other.
As for Kerry firing Berger and now Wilson too. One has to question Kerry's timing.
Regardless, it will hurt Kerry.
I think that he was clueless since he is nothing but a rich boy toy.
Do we want a clueless boy toy of the elite pickled liberal princess Maria Teresa Thiersten Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry serving as our president. Do we want to depend on him to do the research on his own people for our safety?
I don't think so!
As for Kerry firing Berger and now Wilson too. One has to question Kerry's timing.
How about being at about a year late on both of them. That should scare the hell out of anyone who realizes that millions of Islamokazis want to kill our families and destroy America.
Kerry worked with these liars/criminals/career rats and didn't realize how dangerous they were. One can only imagine his lack of insight to those he doesn't know who want to kill all of us.
His insight and common sense are not in queation. He has as much of those as he has Charisma.
Thanks; interesting article.
LOL......great zinger.
Good article.
As I read it, I thought, "This guy thinks like a lawyer."
Turns out he is. <|:)~
Glad you liked it, and I think Clarice is a she.
"Kerry just said in Norfolk that he wants the 9-11 commission to go back to work and finish it's business immediately"
Actually, he wants them to stay in position, for at least another 18 months, to review 'progress' on the improvements in security.
Reminds me of the recent demand for the UN inspectors, (Clouseau gang) going back to work in Iraq!
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.