It should come as no surprise to veteran watchers of the Democratic party that the absurd defenses of Sandy Berger’s document pilfering should have come as quickly and as coordinated as what we have witnessed in the past few days. Smear campaigns and damage control are what the party of Clinton is really all about, and, is anyone really so surprised that the party that tried to redefine ‘is’ in defense of perjury would launch another assault on the English language- this time defending the theft of national secrets?
Let’s go through what happened, and then discuss the talking points and blog reactions. The story:
Clinton administration national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, under criminal investigation for removing copies of highly classified documents from the National Archives, severed his ties to John F. Kerry’s campaign yesterday…
A government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government’s response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified “codeword,” the government’s highest level of document security…
Berger’s attorneys have acknowledged that he removed numerous classified memos, and apparently discarded some, as he reviewed materials on behalf of the Clinton administration for the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They said the removal of documents was inadvertent but that Berger was aware he was violating the law when he removed his handwritten notes without submitting them for review by National Archives staff…
Archives officials discovered that some documents were missing after Berger’s review of the files on Sept. 2, and again Oct. 2. The archives inspector general’s office alerted Berger and former Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey, who is overseeing presidential documents. Berger returned two of the after-action drafts within days, according to his attorneys. Other drafts of the after-action document, they said, were apparently discarded. The archives inspector general began an investigation in October.
Breuer said he does not believe the Justice Department and the FBI are as interested in the handwritten notes as they are in the documents. “We have not been officially told how many documents they actually think are still missing,” said David Fagen, another of Berger’s attorneys. “We believe there are probably no more than two additional versions missing, but we don’t know.”
In other words, on numerous occassions, Berger knowingly removed notes on documents that are one of the most secret classifications possible, as well as pilfering numerous copies of the same memo. Berger ‘accidentally’ and ‘indavertantly,’ while making his mistake, secreted the documents out of the highly secure National Archives in his socks, drawers, jacket, shirt, and leather tote.
That is the story, and it really is that simple, as some of the documents have been recovered in Berger’s possession, and he has admitted to taking the documents. On to the talking points:
1.) These actions were ‘inadvertent.’
Attorney Lanny Breuer says Berger made an “inadvertent mistake,” and adds he has no idea who recently leaked the story.
Indavertent, to most adherents of the English language, means not showing due caution, being careless, or being inattentive. For an example of doing something inadvertently, I will explain what happened to me at a 7/11 like store the other day.
I needed a pack of gum, so I walked down tothe aisle, picked up a big 99 cent pack of extra, and got in line. The line was slow, so I put a piece of gum in my mouth, and indavertently slipped the rest of the pack in my pocket. When I got the front of the line, I handed the clerk $1.05 (West Virginia has been run by Democrats for 100 years, so of coursewe have a regressive 6% tax on foods), and he looked at me and said “How can I help you?”
I then realized, rather sheepishly, that I had inadvertently slipped the gum in my pocket, out of habit. I luaghed, pulled the pack out of my pocket, and joked with the cashier- “Guess I would make a pretty lousy thief.”
That is how you inadvertently do something. Compare that to a former NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, who on three separate occassions (frequently enough that a sting was set up), uses his high security clearance to access sensitive documents in one of the most secure buildings in the government,and then crams numerous copies ofthe same sensitive document down his Joe Boxers before leaving.
In other words, inadvertent, my ass.
2.) This was just a ‘sloppy’ mistake.
Bill Clinton defended his embattled national security adviser Tuesday as a man who “always got things right,” even if his desk was a mess.
“We were all laughing about it on the way over here,” the former president said of the investigation into Samuel “Sandy” Berger on classified terrorism documents missing from the National Archives. “People who don’t know him might find it hard to believe. But … all of us who’ve been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers.” – The Denver Post
Mr. Berger said his lapse was “sloppy,” but House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said “sloppy” wasn’t the right word.
“I think its gravely, gravely serious what he did, if he did it.” – The Washington Times
Last night when I was making spaghetti, I forgot to reduce the heat on the sauce after I added some wine and sugar. It then spattered all over the stove. That was sloppy.
Examples of sloppy writing can e found all over this website. Misused words, (there instead oftheir), comma splices, mis-spelled words, etc. Sloppy writing.
Mr. Berger’s theft of government documents was not sloppy- it was botched. It was not an accident, it was not a mistake, it was not from someone being sloppy with his work. It was an intentional theft. The motive remains unclear at the moment, but the next time you hear one of the Clinton kool-aid crowd try to call this a ‘sloppy mistake,’ feel free to launch the foam brick at the big screen.
3.) The timing of this ‘leak is suspicious.’
On the other hand, Democrats raised questions about the timing of the leak about the investigation, which has been going on for at least nine months. The news broke just days before the 9/11 commission issues its final report and a week before Democrats gather in Boston to nominate Kerry at their national convention.
“I do think the timing is very curious, given this has been under way now for this long,” said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota. “Somebody leaked it, obviously, with intent, I think, to do damage to Mr. Berger, and I think that’s unfortunate.”
Who cares when this information was leaked, and who cares how much damage this does to Berger. It should ruin his career, and he should never work in government AGAIN. He should probably do time in prison for this, if it is proven in court.
Regardless, as Matt Yglesias notes, this ‘leak’ was not timed to do the most damage- it will be knocked off the front page by the 9/11 report tomorrow, and if anything, it has increased my interest in the 9/11 report. Was Berger trying to withold Documents from the commission, doing some Clintonian CYA?
At anyrate, as this post shows, there never is a good time for leaks that are damaging to Democrats.
4.) This was just ‘dumb’ or ‘stupid.‘
Dumb is believing that Bush had information about the WTC attacks before they happened and yet he did nothing to stop them.
Stupid is continuously employing conspiratorial rhetoric and embracing polemicists and propagandists such as Michael Moore until such dumb thoughts pass as mainstream thought within the Democratic party.
Apparently, dumb and stupid acts are rewarded kindly by Democrats, so maybe that is what they mean when they say Berger’s document theft was ‘dumb and stupid.’ In other words- it was a good thing.
Keep your eye on the nonsense as it spews from the left. The facts remain clear- Berger intentionally stole the documents and secreted his notes from the National Archive. Why he stole them- whether to prep the Kerry campaign, to cover for the Clinton administration or to cover his own ass, or to withhold information from the 9/11 commission- those are serious questions that deserve to be answered. Don’t let the Democrats spin you on this one.
too true
There’s another point to be made here.
The documents in question are said to be secured at the code word level. That is very serious stuff. I don’t know about the Archives, but in general material of this sort would be bound in bright colored covers, with the cover indicating the level of security.
ANYONE who has dealt with secure material knows those colors — and an ex National Security Advisor would know them in his sleep.
No way in hell he just “happened” to sweep them into his briefcase along with … what??? his writing paper?
This is truly outrageous behavior, and dangerous as well. The stolen documents contained detailed information about vulnerabilities in our ports, railroads and air infrastructure. Forget about the possibility he gave them to someone else deliberately. Just by taking them out of a secured facility into his car and home, he compromised these. And he says he can’t remember what he did with them???
Think about that if a port gets nuked this year.
Jeanne
Let me add some “spin” to watch for from the Berger team:
The words “copies” and “memo”, as in “there are numerous other copies of the memo” and “the commission DID receive the memo”. As I understand it, he was taking DRAFTS which predated the finalized memo. Were any drafts given to the commission or only the final memo? Are there copies of the drafts or only of the final memo?
Second, another M.O. of the Clinton spinners: leak untrue elements of the story which can be shot down, thus discrediting the whole story. The media should be on the lookout for this.
willyb
“ANYONE who has dealt with secure material knows those colors — and an ex National Security Advisor would know them in his sleep.”
too true, I think you have hit on the answer! Sandy Berger fell asleep while reviewing these documents. While asleep, he stuffed documents in various parts of his clothing. When he awoke, he left without knowing he had these documents, only to discover them when he got home to undress for bed. Some of the documents got washed with his dirty underwear, which explains how they got accidently destroyed, and the rest he hung up in his closet (where they remained until he was asked by the Archives to return them).
This whole thing was perfectly innocent mistake. After all, it’s not like Berger was the President, he was ONLY the National Security Advisor.
david53
If the documents contained strategic info on ports,railroads etc…maybe he left them with Faisal Gill?
The Sanity Inspector
Thank God the grown-ups are in charge.
daniel
I hope that the DOJ is probing links between Berger’s PRIVATE interests as a “CONSULTANT” and the info he STOLE. His client list includes the House of Saud.
It might include Iran, too.
(Kerry has publicly indicated he wants rapprochement with the Mullahs.)
AND: while they’re at it, maybe they should probe links between Joe Wilson’s consulting income/client list?
Perhaps Wilson’s consulting business is merely a laundering operation – set up to launder money his wife earns as a double agent, perhaps for the House of Saud, or Iran – or both.
Kimmitt
“Think about that if a port gets nuked this year.”
You know, I think I’ll be spending time thinking about Bush’s defunding of post-Soviet nuclear reclamation or his manifest failure to make certain that a sizable percentage of incoming containers get swept long before I start thinking of nutjob conspiracy theories.
russ
Poor, poor kimmitt whined in the following way: “You know, I think I’ll be spending time thinking about Bush’s defunding of post-Soviet nuclear reclamation or his manifest failure to make certain that a sizable percentage of incoming containers get swept long before I start thinking of nutjob conspiracy theories”
Poor kimmitt has proven what a real nutjob is all about…
Teri Pittman
Let me see how far my memory goes back: Republican, under Richard Nixon, break into an office and steal documents. Roundly condemned by the press who dig into it constantly. A 15 minute gap shows up in a tape and the Dems say there is no possible way this was an accident. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, this is all a harmless mistake? Their problem with semantics doesn’t surprise me, since Clinton is the one who decided that blowjobs really aren’t sex. Only a fool can’t see this for the coverup that it is.
Terry
Those commenters who have variously referred to “Kimmitt” as a “nutjob,” or the functional equivalent thereof, don’t appreciate just how totally accurate such comments really are!!
Veeshir
This is the 90s all over again. Why can’t Clinton and his toadies just disappear? I keep seeing Berger’s defenders all over the dial and they all lie and spin and distort and we’re supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s classic Clintonianism. Lie, lie, lie. When one lie is discovered, admit only to that. Attack the attackers. Act as if it’s no big deal. And above all else, lie, lie, lie.
It works so much better with a compliant press. I bet this story moves more viewers to Foxnews than anything else. They appear to be the best at pointing out the spin, obfuscations and outright lies. The rest just accept them. And most of them have just moved on. If they don’t report it, it’s not a story.
I know I’m a Clinton-hater. It’s crap like this that gets to me.
Why. Can’t. He. Just. Go. Away?
sonomabatch.
megapotamus
Veeshir, I think you’re right that this pathetic spin job will fail and the monopoly media will be the ultimate loser. My deja vu has vuja de, but I don’t think the Clintonites can reprise the success of their Lie Machine. Why? It’s hard to remember now but all they got away with… the uncountable crimes, lies and misdeeds… they just BARELY were successful. Now, without the machinery of government at their ready disposal (anyone remember Linda Tripp’s personnel file?) and the monopoly media under SERIOUS strains both fiscal and moral (I don’t for a minute think the P Jennings of the world have chnged their spots) can the same program of deceit triumph AGAIN? No.
shark
Let them use their talking points. Even if it’s sloppy and inadvertant and careless….it’s still an example of what Kerry surrounds himself with.
He loses either way.
Believe me, the public won’t swallow this line, at least not the people who count, and will remember this come time to vote..
Mr. Rove: It’s time to crucify Kerry with this.
JPS
Jeez, Kimmitt. The port hasn’t even been nuked yet and you’re all set to blame Bush. Charming.
Kimmitt
Believe me, I’d much prefer to think, “Oh my God, that’s so horrible. At least I can know that our government was doing everything in its power to protect us.”
jonah
In Berger’s world, it’s 100% true that it was “Sloppy.”
The problem is he doesn’t identify exactly what was sloppy about it–that his inherent messiness had him inadvertently stuff 60-90 pages of documents down his pants on multiple occasions, or that it was sloppy of him to think he could attempt such a theft and get away with it.
The image of it keeps making me lol, and no matter how serious it ultimately is, there’s parts of it that are too ridiculous to imagine while sipping a hot beverage.
He not only broke federal laws and compromised the nation’s security, he was willing to look like a buffoon in order to pull it off. THAT is the part that makes me most curious what was so volatile that he was willing to try this.
I know I’ve never had the thought in MY life: “I need to break some really serious laws, and I’ll have to look like an idiot while doing it, but I won’t let those petty concerns stop me!”
Ken Hahn
Kimmitt,
A PFC who mishandled documents of a far lesser classification would face court matial, imprisonment under severe conditions and the total ruin of his life. Why then should the rich and powerful like Berger be given a pass?
Gary Farber
“Berger ‘accidentally’ and ‘indavertantly,’ while making his mistake, secreted the documents out of the highly secure National Archives in his socks, drawers, jacket, shirt, and leather tote.”
Do you have a credible cite for that last part?
willyb
Gary Farber,
Wold you feel better if the exact location of the documents that were the subject of his crime remained undisclosed, say “on his person”?
patch
Who leaked the Berger story?
Lanny Davis.
How do I know?
Linda Chavez asked him a direct question and he refused to answer.
Check out Newsmax.com for the full story and other links.
Veeshir
Okay Gary, here’s two links, both attributing the statement to Berger’s lawyer.
Both have nearly identical phrasings so I’ll only excerpt the one from Yahoo.
.
Foxnews adds that the lawyer said he also stuffed them into his socks.
And here’s a CNN link with the quote
So two links citing two different sources and a third, with much of the salient data including the description, ‘in his pants’, not in his ‘pockets’, but in his “pants”.
But that’s ok, the obvious scandal is the convenient timing of the leaks. They were leacked right before football season started. Man, can you believe the obviousness of Rove, leaking that stuff at just this time. I mean, it’s football season. How crassly political.
Veeshir
One more link with this quote
The same archives monitors told the FBI that Berger was observed stuffing his socks with handwritten notes about files he reviewed that were going to the 9/11 panel. It is prohibited to make notes about the secret files and leave with them without special approval.
“Stuffed socks and pockets is real,” the senior law enforcement official said. “The [theft] was reported by the guards.”
From the NY Daily News, that notorious conservative paper that still wants people to vote for Mario Cuomo.