Replies

Actually, it appears that the archivist resigned BEFORE the Sandy Berger details emerged. I wonder if it was known that there was something going on there? This is from the August 8, 2004 issue of Library Journal (a professional magazine):

Historian Allen Weinstein sailed through a July 22 hearing in the Senate on his controversial nomination to be the ninth Archivist of the United States. However, signaling a potential political battle over what was designed to be a nonpolitical position, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) revealed that a recent exchange of letters suggests that John Carlin's announced resignation was not voluntary. In a July 22 letter to Levin, Carlin explained that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales requested his resignation. When Carlin asked why he was being asked to resign, "no reason was given" by Gonzales. According to law, the archivist can resign or be removed by the president. If the archivist is removed, however, the president must inform Congress of the reasons for removal. In sharing his exchange with Carlin, Levin suggested that the Bush administration, in asking for Carlin's resignation, was seeking to skirt its legal responsibility to inform Congress of the reasons for Carlin's removal. He asked the Governmental Affairs Committee to request that Bush explain his reasons for Carlin's removal.

Meanwhile, Carlin remains in his current position and has asked to stay at least four more months to oversee certain initiatives. Critics of the Weinstein appointment have suggested that Carlin was removed in an effort to keep sensitive presidential documents from becoming public. Weinstein, however, rejected the assertion. Still, when challenged at the hearings, he hedged. He told the committee that, as a private citizen, he had concerns about Bush's executive order because it tilted the balance in favor of "greater confidentiality and less public disclosure." As archivist, however, he testified that he would feel compelled to defend it against lawsuits seeking to overturn it.

New York Sun; Date:Jul 23, 2004;

Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page:10

Title: The Boldness of the President

The (911) report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.

In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times —

Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

Thanks---that gives me a name and timeframe and shortly I'll do some searching. I want to say Berger's first theft occurred---in July.

OK, a quick google on the timeline mentions July, but it isn't clear to me Archives employees would have known until September (read article):

Archives Staff Was Suspicious of Berger

excerpts:

After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case.

~snip~

Several days later, after he had retained Breuer as counsel, Berger volunteered that he had also taken 40 to 50 pages of notes during three visits to the Archives beginning in July, the lawyer said. Berger turned the notes over to the Archives. He has acknowledged through attorneys that he knowingly did not show these papers to Archives officials for review before leaving -- a violation of Archives rules, but not one that he perceived as a serious security lapse.

~snip~

From this it isn't clear to me if there is a connections between Carlin's resignation and the Berger theft, but it certainly is interesting. Will do more searching of articles in a bit.

When I first read your findings, I, too, thought Carlin tendered his resignation before the Berger business happened. That is not correct. The FBI was brought in in January 2004, BUT the DOJ was aware of what was going on almost immediately.

According to the following, Carlin's letter of resignation was dated December 19, 2003. Berger began visiting the Archives in July 2003 and the staff noticed documents missing in September and set up the sting in October (see my Berger timeline link at post #160).

I can't believe I had missed Carlin's resignation and the dems' intense questioning about it, but thank you so much for bringing that up. Here's the link to the article I just found and the excerpts:

Report on the Hearing on Allen Weinstein's Nomination as Archivist of the United States

Excerpts:

On July 22, 2004, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a confirmation hearing on the pending nomination of historian Allen Weinstein to become Archivist of the United States. Weinstein is the Bush administration's choice to succeed the present archivist, John Carlin.

~snip~

Senator Lieberman asked whether Weinstein had any knowledge of Archivist John Carlin's December 19, 2003 letter indicating his intent to resign. (That letter was produced by the White House as evidence that Carlin had initiated the replacement search process.) Weinstein stated he had no such knowledge and then described the circumstances in which the White House approached him about the position.

Weinstein stated that on September 23, 2003 he was invited to meet with Ms. Dina Powell, Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Personnel about the possibility of a nomination as the next Archivist of the United States. In late November and early December he was then asked to fill out investigative and ethics forms that precede all presidential nominations. Weinstein stated that he was made aware that he would be the White House's nominee "in early January 2004." Under questioning, Weinstein also stated that he had several "generalized" conversations with White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales and several others but that at no time were there any discussions about issues relating to archival records relating to the presidency.

~snip~

Senator Levin then introduced a bombshell document into the hearing record -- a letter from current Archivist Carlin that was prepared in response to a number of questions posed to him by Levin regarding whether he [Carlin] approached the administration, or had the administration initially had approached him about resigning as Archivist. (The National Coalition for History and several of its member organizations have repeatedly called on the committee to get to the bottom of the issue relating to the Carlin controversy.) In Carlin's response (dated July 21-my note: July 21, 2004--) obtained by the history coalition, the Archivist stated: "In answer to the first question, the Administration initially approached me. On Friday, December 5, 2003, the Counsel to the President [Alberto Gonzales] called me and told me the Administration would like to appoint a new Archivist. I asked why and there was no reason given."

Carlin then stated in the letter that he wants to continue as Archivist at least four more months as "there are initiatives I would like to complete before concluding my service as Archivist"...specifically the campaign to raise $22 million to fund the Public Vaults permanent exhibit that will open in November 2004 and since "we are on the verge of awarding a contract for the design of the Electronic Records Archives...I would like to see that budget request through to fruition over the next four months."

Levin and Durbin expressed concern that, contrary to provisions of the Archives independence act, the White House was requesting Carlin's resignation without stating a reason required in the law. Following a cordial but doggedly persistent pursuit of his objective, Levin asked Chairman Collins that the committee send a letter to the White House to explain why Carlin was being asked to resign as these actions endanger "the independence of the Archivist's office." If the committee declined to do so, Levin would do so independently.

~SNIP~

I do indeed think it is extremely likely that the Berger business is at issue here and the tone from Levin is very interesting. Very interesting.