SANDY BERGER: I LIED, I DELIBERATELY DESTROYED DOCUMENTS ON TERRORISM POLICY

National Review ^ | April 1, 2005 | Jim Geraghty

[conservativecorner]

The Powerliners are not happy with the Sandy Berger plea deal. But I'm a little surprised that Burglar - I mean, Berger - admitted so much. From today's Post:

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism. ...

The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."

That all sounds pretty damning. But then you read the actual consequences:

Under terms negotiated by Berger's attorneys and the Justice Department, he has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance. These terms must be accepted by a judge before they are final, but Berger's associates said yesterday he believes that closure is near on what has been an embarrassing episode during which he repeatedly misled people about what happened during two visits to the National Archives in September and October 2003. What? Just what do you have to do to get your clearance pulled permanently? Start the clock, he can go back and start deleting memos that make him and his colleagues look bad starting in 2008 or so!

The details of this story are even more damning:

Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business. The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.

Although one element of this story apparently is a bit of an urban legend:

On Sept. 2, 2003, the associate said, Berger put a copy of the Clarke report in his suit jacket. He did not put it in his socks or underwear, as was alleged by some Republicans last summer. Now... what about this deafening silence that we have heard on this from Berger's associates, since this story first surfaced? Will we be seeing any criticism of him from former President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Hillary, John Kerry, or any other prominent Democrat? Is the perception that this is no big deal, standard operating procedure for that White House, and is something to be swept under the rug?

Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?

Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.

[Posted 04/01 04:38 AM]

[InterceptPoint]

The ex-presidents' club...preserve the dignity of the office by shoving the dirt under the carpet.

Yes indeed.

This is sort of the American version of the Mexican Presidents Club. In Mexico you are guaranteed to leave office as a billionaire. In the U.S. you get a guarantee of immunity from prosecution and the preservation of your image.

[Manfred Dog]

There almost has to be more here than meets the eye. One does not just stand up in front of the magistrate and plead under these circumstances without some explanation unless there is some real reason not to explain.

The Justice Department had to know that this would cause a fire storm among the Republican base. They are keeping very quiet. At some point someone is going to have to specify Berger's motivation in chopping up these things. Whatever that motivation was, it cannot help Democrats.

At the July sentencing both the prosecution and the defense will have to be much more forthcoming if they expect the judge or magistrate or whoever sentences Berger to accept the agreed sentence.

All of us have second guessed the Bush Administration before, only to learn that those folks were a step or two ahead of us. It doesn't always work out that way (e.g. steel tariffs), but it does so more often than not. For now, I'm willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt and wait until the sentencing in July.

[Senator_Blutarski]

Maybe we're not supposed to reason why, ours is just to move on or die.

Here's my theory: We are hearing very little about why Berger did this. Perhaps the trail leads back to the Clinton's? Revealing the "why" may be more politically useful 3 years from now during Hillary's run for President.

[philman_36]

We were singing, bye, bye to Old Media, bye
Oh, MAN...you should've made it...
We were singing, bye, bye, the Old Media lie
JMHO.

[philman_36]

BTW, it's coming. Don't lose patience w/me. Got it, just haven't mailed it.
I know, I know...I'm such a procrastinator.

[NEBUCHADNEZZAR1961]

Notice how the press, MSM that is, doesn't care to even hypothesize what information those documents contained? Notice how they don't bother to ponder why Berger did it?
Hmmmm...very interesting.

[Manfred Dog]

There are at least two possible explanations:

First, and more sinister, these were copies that had been changed or someone had added notes, etc., thus they were not identical copies and Burger destroyed them to cover up something.

Second, and more benign, Berger really did what he said [this time] he did: He took them to bone up on what they said in preparation for the 9/11 stuff. In that case, he destroyed them because he was afraid to try to sneak them back in the Archives and did not want them found on him.

The first explanation seems more plausible to me and explains the requirement that Berger be cooperative as a condition to his sentence, but the second is possible.

[digger48]

I didn't say I liked the deal, but it seems everyone wants to blame Bush when up until this week he was getting blamed for NOT INVESTIGATING Berger.

All I mean is, there were things going on that we are not privy to, and we don't know the details of this either.

[philman_36]

There are at least two possible explanations:
There could be dozens of "possible" explanations. As the saying goes..."Anything is possible."

[thoughtomator]

I didn't see any of those "not investigating" criticisms... I was pretty sure that it was being investigated, after all, one couldn't expect regular press conferences giving details of a sensitive national security issue.

[digger48]

reasonable people knew there was an ongoing investigation, but I saw a lot of restless comments that Berger got away with it since he wasn't in court months ago.

I'm as perplexed as anyone over this. Nothing would please me more than to see many more Clintonistas prosecuted and jailed. This was so blatantly overt and stupid, Berger shoulda got 5 years just for being an idiot.

[thoughtomator]

Just add this to the pile of unexplained and inexplicable actions from our obstensibly conservative administration.

It's funny, I thought taking national security seriously was what we voted for in 2004. Guess I was wrong, with this case, the border wide open, and Norman Mineta still sitting in the DoT.

[Manfred Dog]

Don't pettifog.

Perhaps I should have said "at least two plausible explanations", but the meaning and the intent were clear.

[Arpege92]

"Bush loses more creditability by letting the Justice Department cut this deal with this thief."

Well isn't that just peachy. You are doing what so many liberals do today....twist facts and make Bush the villain.

[Pylot]

Hey and only a couple more to find a Clinton Lover digger48!

[AFPhys]

Thanks for the Burgler links.
`

[Southack]

"Do you have a reasonable explanation for why this should be punished so lightly? And why a national security clearance for Mr. Berger should ever be considered again?" - thoughtomator

I don't like it, but if he dropped the dime on his boss (which may be a foreign government), then he's going to get off lightly. Likewise, if we are running a counter-intel operation, then we'd make sure that he'd get a light sentence (the harsher the punishment, the more you signal that Berger got something important).

Why should he be considered for a security clearance again? Because if he doesn't have said clearance, then he is technically barred from revealing certain things that he knows as our former National Security Advisor...say, at a trial or to our intel agents.

There is also the strong possibility that Berger is a double agent. In which case, he'll be used to send false intel to a foreign client.

Spookville is a different sort of city than any other town. The roads and rails run backwards there, and all is not as it seems.

[rampage8]

Could someone please explain why Martha Stewart wound up in jail for far less of an offense, and this jackal walks away scott free???

Does this administration lack the b*lls to punish him and expose what he was trying to hide? This is worse than Watergate, by a distance, and it's being treated like a joke.

[AmishDude]

I don't care if he goes to jail or not. But his clearance has to be pulled permanently and he has to be on record as being a felon. G. Gordon Liddy did far less.

[Dog Gone]

Something happened. He changed his tune and it was undoubtedly a deal. We'll never know the details, just like we'll never know what the documents he took contained.

This is a situation where we can't really have an informed opinion.