Posted on 01/07/2007 9:13:54 AM PST by 13Sisters76
Worse than Watergate -- But Invisible in the Media By Alan Nathan FrontPageMagazine.com | January 5, 2007
President Clinton’s Former National Security Advisor was caught stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives (before the 9/11 Commission could read them), but his actions have garnered less media attention than a fly breaking wind.
Sandy Berger illegally removed four documents, hid them under a construction trailer for later retrieval, then cut three of the four with scissors upon returning to his office. He admitted to lying about it when first questioned by their officials, according to a December 20, 2006, report by Inspector General Paul Brachfeld.
We already knew that in September of 2005, Berger was sentenced to pay a $50,000 fine and complete 100 hours of community service for taking and destroying documents never meant to leave the Archives in October 2003. However, at the time of his plea bargain, much of this story was never reported, and most of us were unaware of just how premeditated had been his cloak and dagger exercises.
Well, now we know, but little of it is making the headlines or the airwaves. Why? Why is it that secret material failing to reach the 9/11 Commission never ignited explosions of press inquiry? He was chosen by Clinton to provide these after-action reports of the 2000 millennium terror plot to the Commission investigating the state of our intelligence on terror before the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wasn’t that beyond a conflict of interest? Why didn’t the Commission send someone not connected to the investigation?
And don’t embarrass yourself by even imagining that Berger, his attorney, and all of his apologists are to be taken seriously when they contend that the documents still exist in their entirety and were submitted to the Commission. As Virginia Republican Representative Tom Davis accurately pointed out when commenting to the Associated Press, “Working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.” He added, “Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials.”
Nobody on the Commission (or on the planet) can assert to have the full accounting of an original tally never known. Why?
Because if it wasn’t inventories, you have no beginning number!
This all screams the question, “Why has the media allocated so little focus on this?” The normal order of things would suggest that we learn from our predecessors. While that remains true for most professions, the same cannot be said of the journalism community.
When debating a judicial nominee’s state of neutrality, one requisite is paramount: Does he have a greater allegiance to his vocation than he does his politics? When judges are meeting such standards, then both the liberal and conservative judge shall rule far more similarly to one another than would two fellow liberals or two fellow conservatives not meeting that requisite.
The average reporter also once had a stronger loyalty to his craft than his biases – perhaps the path to the good old days is through the future, and current journalism majors can lead us back to excellence.
Today however, the media’s five-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives (as was reported by the Pew Foundation in 2004) is having a deleterious impact on us all in that we’re only fully protected when the GOP commit the offense.
Don’t get me wrong, as a centrist I’m delighted with the media exposing Republican criminality. But why should citizens be more vulnerable to other charlatans simply because they are Democrats receiving less scrutiny from their brethren in the Fourth Estate?
Every once in a while a story of great magnitude arises in a way that provokes such little initial coverage that it effectively hides in plain sight. When this occurs, it’s either because the original news worthiness appears to be at a lower level of importance, or because those with direct and indirect vested interests have enough aggregate influence so as to play down the story in question.
The Watergate scandal is an example of the first; Sandy Berger removing and extinguishing protected records of national security exemplifies the second.
In the Watergate burglary fiasco that revealed President Nixon covering up his campaign’s attempt to steal papers from the Democrats, there were political operatives wielding their influence to conceal the event. Thankfully, those operatives were far outweighed by a press more interested in journalism than anyone else’s political agenda. Consequently, what was originally reported as a garden-variety breaking-and-entry would later be understood as a grotesque violation of public trust.
What happened to that kind of passionate investigative journalism? Sandy Berger stealing and destroying classified documents is a story with so many startling facts already in evidence, even the layman newshound should think to ask, “What else is being hidden and what are the motives?”
Why is robbing national security documents less important than robbing campaign documents?
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
Nice of the media to report on it right before Chistmas. Everybody can forget about it and the media can claim to have covered it.
Oops, wrong administration....
The one question that Hillary Clinton should be asked at every whistle stop on her campaign is "What is Sandy Berger hiding?" She claims her time as First-Lady as part of the experience that prepared her for the Senate, ergo Presidency. So, she was there when the deals were being done. What's he hiding?
If this was a Republican theft, Sandy Berger would be a resident of Ft. Leavenworth by now. This issue cannot be brought up enough because future national security could be riding on the very papers that he destroyed.
Did Bill make a deal with Bin Laden to protect the US during his watch? Was his administration aware of an airplane plot scenario and didn't tell the incoming Bush people? What is so important that this man had to risk his fortune and future to protect the Clinton's?
bump
The mind boggles!!
Of course the Republicans could be holding their fire for the presidential campaign by using Berger's actions to tar the presumptive Democratic nominee, right? Nah! But hey, a guy can dream can't he?
Seriously, even if this were the 'game' I wouldn't be happy about it. This goes way beyond politics. Berger should have been charged, tried & convicted. Instead he was charged & pleaded out by a Justice Department that wasn't serious about doing its job.
SCISSORS? The guy couldn't use a diamond-cut shredder?
Strips cut by scissors may be reconstructed by a patient person, as scissor cuts have distinct characteristics, much like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. But a diamond-cut shredder is much more difficult to reassemble.
Gee, I hope Sandy at least used blunt scissors, so he wouldn't injure himself while carrying them and running, should he happen to fall.
Thankfully, those operatives were far outweighed by a press more interested in journalism than anyone else’s political agenda.
Actually, they weren't. They were interested only in destroying Nixon. It looked like they were pursuing the story at all costs, but they would likely not have done so against a dim.
And we conservatives are NEVER going to get our country back until such time as we figure out how to deal effectively with the MSM!
The media is way too busy reporting on the horrible state of the economy.
[If you need an end-sarcasm tag for this, you're on the wrong forum.]
"What is so important that this man had to risk his fortune and future to protect the Clinton's?"
A more relevant question would be, why did Bush's Attorney General accept a plea bargain with a slap on the wrist for this traitor? And why does Bush refuse to pardon the two border patrolmen that were prosecuted so vigorusly for doing their jobs. They got 11yrs and 12yrs respectively in prison while this traitor got a slap on the wrist.
Bunk. Not this part of "most of us". I've got this great bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to anyone who thought this was just a foolish mistake.
It's not just the MSM. It is the brain-dead fawning lazy uncaring spineless GOP.
This crime of Burger's is above an beyond the minutes of blank tape in the Nixon years. I think Sandy Burger should be strung up until he comes clean on just what was so important on the documents he stole. Accountability for his actions, why isn't this happening??
Because the mainstream media doesn't give a rat's butt, that's why.
As I understand it, he gets his security clearance back just in time to step into a position in the next potential democrat administration.
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.