The Bush Administration is rightly castigated for whatever lapses they are responsible for that may have led to them ignoring or downplaying the terrorist threat prior to 9/11. However, we know that they were not acting in bad faith like some:
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.
Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney, said in a statement: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”
The terms of Berger’s agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. 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.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch.
When they say misled, they mean he lied:
BREUER: Exactly. And at the time of the millennium in 2000, if you remember, there were lots of threats about terrorism. And the White House and the United States addressed those concerns. And most people look at the time of January 1, 2000 as a time that we can be proud of. We thwarted terrorist cells. Berger was the national security adviser and he was very proud of what they did. But he didn’t just rest on his laurels. He said to Clarke, “I want you to take a hard look. Tell us what we did right and tell us what we didn’t do right.” And to Clarke’s credit, he did it. To Berger’s credit he asked him to do it.
Now with respect to what this document is about, it is widely known. Its existence is widely known. It’s written about in books and in magazines.
BLITZER: So why did he have to take it out of that room?
BREUER: That he did it inadvertently.
BLITZER: What is inadvertently?
BREUER: Let me tell you what happened.
BLITZER: Sandy Berger doesn’t do things inadvertently.
Really, folks- this was just a big, fat lie:
One Berger associate said Berger acknowledges placing his handwritten notes into his pants pockets, and perhaps into his jacket as well.
National Archives policy requires that if someone reviews classified documents and wants to take out handwritten notes, those notes must first be cleared by archivists.
“I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced,” Berger said in a written statement.
There was nothing indavertant or accidental about it, as we now know, those who suspected intentional theft were correct. First up for some scorn in this sordid tale is former President Clinton, who offered up this laughable excuse for Berger’s stuffing documents in his knickers and socks:
Former president Bill Clinton defends his embattled national security advisor as a man who “always got things right,” even if his desk was a mess.
“We were all laughing about it,” Clinton said about the investigation into Sandy Berger for taking classified terrorism documents 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.”
It isn’t the papers Berger is buried under that concerns us- it is the papers buried in his underwear that are of interest. Next up for some ridicule is former Clinton advisor David Gergen, who defended Berger and maligned the accusers:
David Gergen, who was an adviser to Clinton and worked with Berger for a time in the White House, said Tuesday, “I think it’s more innocent than it looks.”
“I have known Sandy Berger for a long time,” Gergen said in a television interview. “He would never do anything to compromise the security of the United States.” Gergen said he thought that “it is suspicious” that word of the investigation of Berger would emerge just as the Sept. 11 commission is about to release its report, since “this investigation started months ago.”
Enter Lanny Davis:
Law enforcement sources said archive staff members told FBI agents they saw Berger placing items in his jacket and pants, and one archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks.
That latter allegation drew a sharp response from Berger associate and former White House lawyer Lanny Davis, who challenged any unnamed official who makes such an accusation to come forward publicly.
“I suggest that person is lying,” he said. “And if that person has the guts, let’s see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks.”
Lanny Davis, exit stage left, enter Tom Daschle:
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said he found the timing “very curious, given this has been under way now for this long.”
“Somebody leaked it, obviously, with intent, I think, to do damage to Mr. Berger, and I think that’s unfortunate,” Daschle said.
And while we are slapping people on the wrist, let’s take Josh Marshall to task:
As far as I can tell, my comments from last night stand. Notes taken from classified documents are themselves classified, unless and until they are cleared as containing no classified information. That at least appears to be the standard procedure.
However, it seems equally clear that the surfacing of this matter is the product of a malicious leak intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 commission report.
Consider the timing.
According to this article in the Post, the National Archives began investigating this matter in October and then referred it to the FBI in January. That is, needless to say, at least six months ago. The article also notes that the FBI has yet to interview Berger, which suggests that the investigation has not reached a critical stage, for good or ill, that would have brought it to light now.
The most obvious, and probably the only, explanation of this leak is that it is intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 report due later this week. That would be yet another example of this administration’s common practice of using the levers of executive power (law enforcement, declassification, etc.) for partisan purposes.
That doesn’t mean Berger doesn’t have any explaining to do. The two points are not exclusive of each other.
As I chided Marshall before– Berger steals documents, and Marshall smells a Republican conspiracy. A more likely scenario (now that Berger has admitted to stealing the documents and shredding them in an effort to conceal… well, we will never know what he was concealing) is that officials were prescient of the fact that Berger had something to do with the disappearance of the documents and knew that they were somehow related to his upcoming testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Which brings up the larger point- Can we still trust Sandy Berger’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission? Remember this:
In late ’99, as we approached the Millennium celebrations, the CIA warned us of five to 15 plots against American targets. This was the most serious threat spike during our time in office. I convened national security principals at the White House virtually every day for a month. During this Millennium period, plots were uncovered in Amman against the Radisson Hotel and religious sites, and against the Los Angeles airport. Terror cells were broken up in Toronto, Boston, New York and elsewhere…
You also asked about the transition. When our administration ended, we alerted the incoming team to the terrorist threat and al Qaeda. During the transition, Bush administration officials received intensive briefings on this. As has been reported, I told my successor that she would be spending more time on terrorism and al Qaeda than any other issue. I did my best to emphasize the urgency I felt.
Members of the Commission, looking back at our years in office, there were successes, disappointments and frustrations. Sixty-seven American lives were lost to foreign terrorism during the Clinton administration. But fighting terrorism was a high and growing priority from the beginning of the Clinton administration to the end…
And we can’t forget this exchange between the shamelessly partisan Richard Ben-Veniste and Mr. Berger:
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Now, with respect to the function of the national security adviser, your function is to coordinate and to relay to the President information both of a foreign and domestic nature as it regards our national security; is that correct?
MR. BERGER: That’s correct, although the traditional focus of the National Security Council have been the traditional concerns of national security, which have been foreign threats, but that, obviously, has evolved over time.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: And it certainly evolved during your service. Specifically I point to the Millennium threat —
MR. BERGER: Yes.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: — where the United States, as we have heard, at its highest levels was on battle stations. You convened meetings of the Cabinet to deal with that threat, did you not?
MR. BERGER: Yes, I did.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: And that was on an intense and frequent basis; is that correct?
MR. BERGER: It was on a daily basis, Mr. Commissioner, I think almost every day for a month.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: And is it correct that although, again, the focus of the threat was supposedly against assets overseas, indeed, as you have related in your opening remarks, plots involving North America and sleeper cells in North America, including Los Angeles, Toronto, Boston and others, were uncovered and thwarted by reason of the intensive efforts that were made during the Millennium time frame.
MR. BERGER: I do believe that we thwarted threats and I do believe it was important to bring the principals together on a frequent basis for a number of reasons. Things happen when the number one person is in the room. So Director Tenet would say I’ve got a lead on so and so, and the attorney general would turn around to a person sitting behind her and say, “Can we get a FISA on this person?” And she’d say “the answer is yes, Attorney General.” We got more FISAs in a shorter period of time than ever before in history. And when the principal spends an hour a day at the White House or more, he goes back or she goes back to her agency or his agency and she — he or she shakes that agency for whatever it has.
So I believe that the threat was sufficiently serious that it had to be operated at that level. You can’t operate that, obviously, principals level as a routine matter, but this was not a routine situation.
Nothing that Sandy Berger was involved in regarding this testimony can now be taken at face value. His testimony before the commission is suspect (as is Richard Clarke’s), and I can not trust the conclusions of the commission that relate to the late Clinton years.
At its very worst, this is a story of undermining national security for personal partisan reasons. At its best, it is petty theft in the pursuit of legacy protection. Samuel “Sandy” Berger should never hold another government job as long as he lives.
*** Update ***
Matt Yglesias points out that Berger and his supporters can seek refuge in the ambiguity of the report.
*** Update ***
Robert Crawford
Ambiguity? He admitted to stealing and destroying classified documents.
Thom
He was “shredding” documents, he was just making paper dolls at his office late one night with what he thought were copies of documents of no interest to anyone.
Joshua Claybourn
I’m gonna call “bullshit” on Yglesias. There’s no ambiguity in the report. “The terms of Berger’s agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. 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.” Ambiguous?
btorrez
Berger loses his security clearance for only three years. Terrific. He will be able to get it back just in time to serve President Hillary Clinton. What a complete white wash.
Buster
Yet another example of why people believe there are two justice systems in America. Berger is a shabby thug and should be treated as one. Instead, he gets a slap on the wrist. Hell, less than a slap on the wrist.
Thomas
The ambiguity is did he steal the documents in order to cover something up, or did he take them home for legitimate reasons, albeit a criminal action since they were classified, and for whatever reason destroy two and lie about it? The first is pretty damn serious. The second isn’t, except for Sandy Berger, although his sentence seems to be pretty light.
Also, it doesn’t help that from the Post and the Times reports it’s difficult to say if the documents were copies or not. If they were copies, it makes the cover-up charge dubious, since Berger would have been rather confused to destroy copies for his nefarious purposes.
debsay
“The ambiguity is did he steal the documents in order to cover something up, or did he take them home for legitimate reasons, albeit a criminal action since they were classified, and for whatever reason destroy two and lie about it? The first is pretty damn serious. The second isn’t, except for Sandy Berger, although his sentence seems to be pretty light.”
Well, duh!! Since he purposfully destroyed 3 ‘copies’ instead of just taking them back….they must have had some comments written on them – otherwise you are asking us to believe that he comitted, what he knew to be a crime as National Security Advisor, a crime for nothing???? Does this even make sense to you?
Nixon didn’t erase those 8 minutes off of the tape because they weren’t important and Berger didn’t shred these documents because they were just copies….to belive that is just ridiculous!
Gary E. Hill
Note Clinton’s remarks; certainly something was on these documents that hurt the cover up story that Clinton administration did all it could to warn Bush folks; remember Janet Reno admitting she never mentioned Al Qaeda or Bin Laden to her counterpart; this is not consistent; my guess is that this Berger theft involved the Jamie Gorelik memo; how she was ever allowed on the Commission is proof enough that the Democrats were worried; and Richard Ben Veniste; what crap.
George Tobin
The emphasis on the fact that Berger is a liar is besides the point. As a Clintonista he was forced to lie because of the prospect of right-wing criticism, all of which is unfair by definition. New lies will now have to be constructed now that this set is inoperant. The emergence of those lies will be the fault of the vast RW conspiracy (especially you blogger types these days) that refused to accept the initial lie. You should be ashamed for being the cause of this entire sordid affair.
amyc
how unfortunate for Mr. Berger that Terry Schiavo died before this story hit the papers. the MSM can still bury this story under lots of copy about the Pope’s demise.
Slartibartfast
Already been tried, George.
Great post, John.
Timothy
It doesn’t seem relevant what Berger’s intent was. The facts are simple:
1) He removed classified documents from the archive.
2) He destroyed same.
3) He lied about it, repeatedly, under various circumstances.
It doesn’t matter why he did it, it matters that he committed a series of fairly serious felonies and should be punished by years in Federal Prison, not this slap-on-the-wrist-sign-a-book-deal “punishment” that he’s gotten.
Some Guy
It is interesting to see what the best lawyers can get you.
Anyone curious to see how less connected people are treated for the same offense? It would be interesting to put Berger side-by-side with someone currently serving time for attempting to steal and/or destroy classified documents of a less important nature. I’m guessing that Berger’s sleazy excuses and his lawyers’ sloppy attempts to cover up his crime would appear all the more Clintonesque.
Then again, maybe it’s time to just close the door on these idiots and make a note to ourselves that anyone associated with the last administration deserves no respect.
Mark
George, please. I thought that the Clinton apologistas had been given clear instrcutions to avoid ‘moral relativism’;
Berger committed a crime, that has attracted a punishment that many consider to be far too lenient, and you claim that circumstances forced him to do it. The man’s a criminal. I don’t think any rational person would claim that having a perjuror as the NSA is acceptable.
I could make a cheap shot about perjury being a badge of honor within the Clinto Admnistration … but I won’t.
I would be interested to hear just how you would expect a similar situation to play out if the roles were reversed and it had been Condoleeza Rice in the hotseat.
Black Jack
Where’s the JUSTICE here? Why does Mr Burger get off with a puny fine and only a temporary halt in his access to classified materials? This isn’t justice, it’s a bad joke, and it’s on us, the fools who put up with this idiot nonsense.
What did Burger do? Well, so far we know he stole and then destroyed crucial government documents which subverted the investigation into the bloodthirsty murder of 3000 Americans. That’s what.
Why the slap on the wrist? Has Burger named his coconspirators? Are indictments pending? Who instructed Burger to steal classified materials? Who was he calling and meeting with around the time he was detected, and were there any large deposits to his bank accounts? Who benefited from Burger’s theft?
I’m no lawyer, but presumably there are a few on the Justice Department staff. Why can’t they earn their keep? This isn’t good enough, it’s an obvious perversion of justice and it won’t do, not at all.
The victims of 9/11 deserve better than this.
Kimmitt
I’ll believe that this is something other than a partisan witchhunt when I see anything resembling the same amount of moral dudgeon regarding General Sanchez’s perjurous testimony before Congress regarding his orders to torture detainees.
I mean, yeah, great, the guy broke the law and now he’s getting punished as he should be. But y’all are just scoring points.
Slartibartfast
Mark, I’d thought George was being sarcastic.
Mark
Martha does 5 months for lying to Federal Agent about a non-crime. Sandy lies to a Federal agent and gets his security clearance suspended? Talk about “get out of jail free.” Oh, lest we forget, the mantra will be “he’s already been punished for that, why not confirm him for ….”
Slartibartfast
That’s just the point, Kimmitt: what Berger did merits quite a lot more punishment than what he got, which amounts to a wrist-slap. And as was pointed out upthread, if this had been Rice pulling a Nixon, the outrage from your quarter wouldn’t be exactly restrained.
MikeyB
Geez, any less punishement, and they’d have paid Berger his hourly rate to lift the documents.
Jim O'Sullivan
Great job, Mr Cole! It is an outrage that Berger will never have to explain why he destroyed those documents, let alone reveal to the appropriate authorities what they contained. No slam time, and he loses his clearance for only three years? Why is the Justice department treating this like a third-rate burglary?
Kimmitt
And as was pointed out upthread, if this had been Rice pulling a Nixon, the outrage from your quarter wouldn’t be exactly restrained.
Now here’s a fun question — why would a Bush Justice Department conceivably go easy on Sandy Berger? You’d think that if they had some serious charge to hang on him, they’d nail him to the wall. Here’s a guy who not only is on the other side, but apparently committed a crime against the nation. They ought to loathe this guy. He ought to be in Federal f*** me up the a** prison. This whole thing is beyond hinky. I’m having a hell of a time finding any of this credible. You would too, if you weren’t so obviously lost in schadenfreude.
M. Scott Eiland
An appropriate postscript for “the most ethical administration in history.” Like his former lord and master, Sandy Berger knows a good plea bargain when he sees one.
Just remember, kids–this guy was John Kerry’s go-to guy on national security before this scandal came out.
john
Since he purposfully destroyed 3 ‘copies’ instead of just taking them back..
Well, if I had sucessfully stolen (3) copies, I doubt I would be trying to return them anywhere, seeing as possession would be an admission of the crime, so a match or scissors would be the obvious solution.
big dirigible
Consideration of what bogus documents Berger might have smuggled IN to the archives seems to have dropped off the radar screen. After all, he was wearing the same socks and underwear going in as coming out – an ideal opportunity to plant documents which will be useful to future spinmeisters and Clinton apologists.
PersonFromPorlock
Am I the only one who thinks there’s something odd about the statement that he shredded the documents ‘with a pair of scissors’?
His office doesn’t have a shredder? It must be the only one in Washington that doesn’t.
There’s something eye-catching about a gratutitous statement that doesn’t quite ring true; why make it?
Slartibartfast
That is a fun question, Michael, but not one I have any sort of evidenced (or even unevidenced, on second thought) explanation for.
And it’s not schadenfreude, it’s wanting to see this guy get punishment commensurate with the crime. If you had the slightest clue about what security regulations are for and what they’re in place to protect, you’d probably (I’m hoping, anyway) feel the same way.
Look, this is all very simple: Berger’s already admitted to deliberately (and illegally, I shouldn’t need to add) removing and destroying classified documents from the National Archive. There’s absolutely no question that he did it. None. He’s admitted to having done it.
Now, a sufficiently moonbatty conspiracy theorist might imagine that Berger actually destroyed something that’s just slightly less damaging to Bush than it was to Clinton, which might explain why DoJ has Berger just slightly more over a barrel than he them. Even if that were the case, though, I’d want to know about it. Michael, on the other hand, seems to think that any and all pursuit of Berger is motivated not by regard for the law but rather politics.
Slartibartfast
Which would be a fine solution if you didn’t understand how classified document accountability works. And Berger, being a former National Security Advisor, cannot have been cognizant of the fact that those documents would show up missing and he’d have been the last to have checked them out. This is not some loosy-goosy movie rental sort of thing. There’s always a chain of accountability for classified documents, and that chain would point directly to Sandy Berger once the docs came up missing. Furthermore, Berger knew this full well. I agree with Kimmitt that this whole thing stinks; we simply don’t know why it stinks.
Slartibartfast
“cannot have been cognizant” should have read “cannot have been ignorant”. Not enough coffee, man.
Oliver
Now, if only you guys had the same sort of outrage at the people who were, you know, in charge at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
Slartibartfast
Suggesting Bush is a perpetrator in 9/11 is unusually moonbattish, even for you, Oliver.
kate q
Let’s give security clearance to a man who has already stolen and destroyed classified documents. Think he might be a good risk?
Who are these people?
Blue
Yes, it sucks.
But at the least following this there is NO WAY Berger can be appointed to any position requiring the confirmation of the Senate. He would never survive the Republican cross examination.
Slartibartfast
Remember these are politicians we’re talking about, Blue.
Richard of Oregon
As I understand it, as a plea bargin, Sandy Berger has admitted to taking and destroying the copies. He has not stated what was on or in those documents that he felt compelled to destroy. He’s getting off completely on that. So, what was so importent to keep from the commision that he would break the law for?
t0m
I think he should get the same punishment Oliver North got for destroying documents and selling weapons to our enemies: His own prime-time show on Fox News.
t0m
Now, if only you guys had the same sort of outrage at the people who were, you know, in charge at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
Posted by: Oliver on April 1, 2005 04:14 PM
Suggesting Bush is a perpetrator in 9/11 is unusually moonbattish, even for you, Oliver.
Posted by: Slartibartfast on April 1, 2005 04:16 PM
Hmmmm… in charge at the time = a perpetrator in?
Now that’s some Republican logic for you!
Kimmitt
Tom’s comment on Oliver North sums up for me the fully political nature of this discussion.
DANEgerus
When Nixon(R) sent in Burglars it was called Watergate…
When Clinton(D) sent in Berger it was called… [silence]
Slartibartfast
Yes, political in precisely this way: if it’s Ollie North, hang him. If it’s Sandy Berger, jeez, it’s a witchhunt!
Slartibartfast
Pssst: Oliver’s a Democrat. It’s his comparison; you might want to take it up with him.
Johann Foo
This is American justice at its worst.
Amy
He should get 10 years, not a fine. These are documents pertaining to the security of the United States, and no one, no matter republican or democrat, should get away with that. I say, ‘book him’. And his clearance should be revoked permanently, not for three measly years. This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Kimmitt
I agree, actually, which is why I would be completely baffled that it didn’t happen, if I took all this at face value. Which I just can’t.
Slartibartfast
Worse things have happened, and fairly recently. John Deutch took home a TS-cleared laptop which was under no circumstances to be hooked up to any unclassified network, and used it to surf for web porn from home. He kept his clearance. In fact, after his ouster he was kept on as consultant at the CIA.
So, even though I too am baffled by this (so far; it’s not set in stone as far as I know), I don’t think it actually means anything other than typical government stupidity.
jt007
The documents were code word classified which is higher than top secret. Normally, the code word classified document will be distributed to specific personnel for comments. Each copy is returned to the entity that distributes it (in this case the National Security Advisor’s office) with notes. Therefore, while the body of each copy of the memo may be identical, each copy becomes a unique document once it is marked up with comments. We will never know what these notes said, but I can’t see any other motive than ass covering by one of the worst NSA’s we have ever had.
Ben Veniste’s questioning was idiotic. The Seattle PI did an investigative series about the apprehension of A. Ressam. The customs officer in charge of the Port Angeles border crossing said that they were NOT under any heightened alert and had not been provided any information regarding terrorists coming from Canada. In addition, Janet Reno admitted as much in response to Tim Roehmer’s pathetic attempt to link the Clinton Admin.’s focus on millenium terrorism to Ressam’s capture. She said it wasn’t the result of a heightened alert an that “we just got lucky”.
Berger is a typically arrogant Democrat who couldn’t admit a mistake if his life depended on it. He did a horrible job and is the one who allegedly prevented the CIA from killing Bin Laden when he was located with the predator drone in 2000 (or was it 1999). He thought he could get away with taking the documents and, pre-blogosphere, he probably could have because the media would have ignored the incident and would have portrayed any investigation as political and timed to distract attention from the 9-11 commission’s findings that were harmful to Bush.
Don Meaker
The reason why Sandy gets a light sentence is “he knows too much”. If you didn’t offer him a good plea bargain, then 1. a lot of information gets made public by a trial.
2. he has no restriction on what information he leaks in the future. Sure, leaks of embarassing information is against the law, but Berger could pass the information through cutouts. I am sure that part of the plea bargain is who else he gave up, and this is not made public because it gives the justice department time to research them.
He probably promised to testify against them. There may be a suspended sentence or probation that will enforce the requirement to testify.
Kimmitt
Berger is a typically arrogant Democrat who couldn’t admit a mistake if his life depended on it.
You’re right, that’s a failing which is exclusive to one politicial party.
Big Al
Someone at Justice Dept. made a determination that what was destroyed would be more damaging to the country or embarassing than exposing that thing at trial. Whay do you think so many spies get a plea bargain? The trial would be as bad/embarassing as the theft of the secret. Don’t misread me, Berger is a Clintonista crook.
Bob
Sorry, I was loading up my new iPod, did the Pope die?
For someone without security clearance and no insider info from operatives in DC, this is what I saw:
The Berger story was old when it hit the press last year. It went through the same Republican noise machine that, say, the Swift Boat Liars came out of. The same unthinking op-ed pieces, the same “blame Clinton” pieces. One week Berger with documents stuffed in his socks, last week Hillary’s lesbo agenda for America, next week Kerry the coward. So if it was served in the same shrink wrap, please forgive if it was initially dismissed as the same bullshit.
Now, did Berger steal and destroy classified documents? Sure sounds that way. To what end? I haven’t seen any purpose to it, just speculation from the right. If it leads to someone else, why didn’t the Justice Department tighten the screws (maybe an unfortunate turn of phrase with our current Attorney General) on Berger? Instead, he gets a slap on the wrist. I can’t imagine this Justice Dept. being this forgiving to such a Democratic operative.
I think that the timing is pretty obvious. The court decision is getting the news here on the Right, while on the Left they are looking at Bush’s report blaming the bad intel leading up to the Iraq war on the CIA. You know, that org headed by that Tenet guy, the one who got the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Terri Schiavo, the Pope, Sandy Berger. What did that report say again? Oh yeah, it was the CIA that fucked up.
Captain Dick
Is it not true that Sandy Berger was denied his first appointment by the Clinton administration to be under SecDef? My memory is that he could not get the proper security clearance. Am I wrong on this?
Merline
The DOJ owes big apologies to G. Gordon Liddy, John Dean,Alex Butterfield, et al for committing a FAILED burglary of the DNC! Not to mention Richard Nixon and Martha Sewart! BAH! HUMBUG!
Sandy Berger needs to be left twisting, twisting, slowly in the wind.
reliapundit
he should be charged with TRESON. Tried, and if convicted = EXECUTED.
Joe Eagle
Balloon Juice is all over the abysmally reported, some would say, treasonous behavior of former Clinton appointee Sandy Berger.
Berger’s attorney: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”
An intentional act of national betrayal is being given a pass in the news as if it were an innocent mistake in judgement. It’s not. Nor is it simply a matter of “opinion.”
Try these:
Mr Hitler regrets the mistakes he made…
Osama regrets…
Jack The Ripper regrets…
When words have no literal meaning in the news, the news becomes meaningless except as a pusher of blather and propaganda
“We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist. . . . To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack.”9
Remember those top secret documents stolen from the National Archives vault by former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger?
Balloon Juice is all over the abysmally reported, some would say, treasonous behavior of former Clinton appointee Sandy Berger.
Berger’s attorney: “Mr. Berger … accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”
An intentional act of national betrayal is being given a pass in the news as if it were an innocent mistake in judgement. It’s not. Nor is it simply a matter of “opinion.”
Try these:
Mr. Hitler regrets the mistakes he made…
Osama bin Laden regrets the mistakes…
Jack The Ripper regrets the mistakes…
When words have no literal meaning in the news, the news becomes meaningless except as a pusher of blather and propaganda.
The news has no reverence for actual reality: the kind where words mean the same thing to everyone over time. Thus everything becomes “relative.”
How reporters feel about people and events are reported as if they’re actual reality. Thus “the story” replaces what’s actually going on. The reporter makes little or no distinction between “his or her reality” and “the” reality.
How insane is that? If it becomes too routine, the news won’t even realize that America is the victim of the 9-11 terrorist atrocities, not the perpetrator.
Even worse, the news could obliterate the vital distinctions between good and bad, attacker and attacked. If it’s all about how the reporter feels, or which “side” has their sympathies, then all the news’ so-called reality really is “relative.”
So what? What’s the worst thing that could possibly happen? The absolute, bottom line catastrophic world-screwing, deadliest thing that could happen?
America could be the innocent victim of a terrorist atrocity in which thousands of innocents are casually, brutally slain. The news, instead of reporting the obvious, could fail to make the simplest necessary life-and-death distinctions.
News enterprises could be rallying us to communal blame, rather than to fighting back. They could equate our legitimate self-defense with our attackers’ terroristic acts.
The head of a prominent global news wire service might even produce the ultimate clusterf**k of reality, declaring:
“We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist. . . . To be frank, it adds little to call the attack on the World Trade Center a terrorist attack.”
Oh, wait! All that did happen!
And the news didn’t drum this flyweight out of the profession. The scariest thing isn’t what he said. What’s realy scary is that it’s widely believed, accepted, and parroted to us endlessly in the news as if it were some great truth instead of what it is: deadly reality pollution — of the global kind
Not clear? Think about it. When the good guys respond to attack by blaming themselves, and insisting there aren’t any bad guys because, after all one man’s good guy is another man’s bud guy – all is lost. End of “story.” End of civilization soon to follow.
Orman
“I why would a Bush Justice Department conceivably go easy on Sandy Berger”
“Deutch took home a TS-cleared laptop which was under no circumstances to be hooked up to any unclassified network, and used it to surf for web porn from home. He kept his clearance”
One law for the Lords, another for the peasants? It might seem so. especially since a senior UN official who had 3 years worth of food-for-oil documents shredded seems to be somebody else getting a free pass both legally and in the media. I suppose both Sandy Burglar and the UN fellow should consider themselves fortunate they did not work for Enron or Martha Stewart.
“why didn’t the Justice Department tighten the screws . . . on Berger? Instead, he gets a slap on the wrist. I can’t imagine this Justice Dept. being this forgiving to such a Democratic operative.”
The implication of the remainder seems to be that the CIA is influential in this situation. Hard to think that a draft prepared before the election could embarrass Bush much. But the real question is
who called the shots on the government side of the plea bargain? Maybe one of the lessons to be drawn from this
outrage is that instead of having a plea bargain
made at some unknown level by some unknown individual(s) in
a large, anonymous bureaucracy like the Department of Justice, there
should be a requirement to publicly divulge the
approvers – and the agencies with which those approvers have “coordinated” or conspired if you will admit a more honest word.
The constant weaseling secrecy of the Federal government – independent of which party is in power – is increasingly frightening.
Virginia Weicheld
Berger is a thief, who took National Security Papers from the US Gov. and destroyed them followed by denial. This is Treason and I want Justice.
Virginia Weicheld
Berger is a thief, who took National Security Papers from the US Gov. and destroyed them followed by denial. This is Treason and I want Justice.
Slartibartfast
Let’s not go overboard on the accusations of treason, ok? Treason has a specific meaning, and this doesn’t fit it.
Bob
Yes, Virginia, this isn’t treason. By the way, he was tried and convicted. It’s over.
Now all that’s left is for you to go take a contract out on the judge who presided on the case.
Craig
“Then again, maybe it’s time to just close the door on these idiots and make a note to ourselves that anyone associated with the last administration deserves no respect.”
The writer is the idiot, and irrational – condemning all the people who had nothing to do with the incident for one person’s actions.
What a joke when compared to the far worse corruptions and actions clearly far more harmful to the nation by the most recent several Republican administrations.
Ron Phelps
You started this post with >>he Bush Administration is rightly castigated for whatever lapses they are responsible for that may have led to them ignoring or downplaying the terrorist threat prior to 9/11.>>
Now according to the 52 memo acquired from the Airlines, the bush administration had no lapses.. they outright lied in front of congress about what they knew and when they knew it… Rice said they knew nothing of planes being used..and insinuated her questioners were being unpatriotic for even asking …. since then over 1500 americans have died, 100,000 iraq women and children, 15000 wounded american soldiers, an untold number with stress syndrome… Now where exactly has the Administration been rightly castigated?????? Yet you hit the roof over a couple of documents….Please.
justice
Sandy Berger crime is more proof that the Anit-Bush crowd are depraved morons!
Hammocks
Get hammocks…Great blog by the way..