Not just in his socks. Under a construction trailer, too.
A $65,000 question for Sandy Berger
By AcademicElephant Posted in National Security — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A new report by the Inspector General of the National Archives on the document-snitching activities of former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has been released. You all remember Mr. Berger, don't you? He was on everyone's short list to be Secretary of State in a 2004 democrat administration when he was nabbed for removing and destroying documents from the National Archives. Mr. Berger has plead guilty and paid a fine, but his defenders claim it was all a misunderstanding. Mr. Clinton, for example, referred to Mr. Berger as a sort of absent-minded professor, and insinuated Mr. Berger shuffled a bunch of papers together and discarded what he thought was trash when he returned to his office. Ha ha. There's no real "crime" here. It's just like Sandy. Mr. Clinton also suggested that the whole story was part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Eventually the story quietly went away, discreetly buried by a media with no interest in its implications.
But this report reopens the issue, and provides new information that points towards something very smelly in those papers that Mr. Berger was so eager to destroy. Now I've never worked in the National Archives, but I've worked in a fair number of other archives, and there is simply no way this could inadvertently happen in any such institution with which I am familiar. There are rules and protocols because you are dealing with unique and irreplaceable historical documents--and the goal is to preserve them. In other words, this is not your local library.
Mr. Berger's actions in this context are damning. We learn from this report that he most likely did stuff the documents into his socks. Mr. Berger's tried to explain that he was fiddling with something white around his ankle because "his shoes frequently come untied and his socks frequently fall down." And, I suppose, white papers frequently fall into them? He used his position to elude detection (the librarians were nervous about approaching someone of Mr. Berger's "status" and questioning him about the papers in his socks). He broke the rules by going out without an escort--and when outside of the archives, he removed the documents from his socks and put them under a construction trailer that he would be able to access from the street. He went back later to retrieve them, and then destroyed them. There is nothing absent-minded about this caper. It may have been clumsy, even a bit ludicrous, but it was no accident. The New York Times calls his actions "cavalier." I think the apropos word is "desperate." This seems to me, as I imagine Mr. Berger trying to affix papers to his legs and then crawling around in the mud of a construction site "after dark," the act of a desperate man--a man willing to risk what at that point looked like a shoe-in for a top cabinet post should John Kerry win--to destroy those papers.
Read on...
The $65,000 question is no longer if Mr. Berger is guilty. He is. And it is not longer if this was some sort of innocent mistake. It was not.
The $65,000 question is: What was in the documents?
The Berger line is that he took four copies of the 2000 classified reports on millennial terrorist threats that the 9/11 Commission already had. This makes absolutely no sense. Why would Mr. Berger imperil his future to destroy archival materials that were of no particular import? Might there have been something else terrorism-related that happened in 2000 and was filed with those reports--something that he did not want the Commission to discover?
It's tinfoil hat time.
The possibilities are endless, but one likely candidate might be an episode involving Usama bin Laden. This occurred to me because Mr. Berger's bizarre actions brought to mind Mr. Clinton's equally strange behavior on Fox News Sunday earlier this year, in which he went ballistic over the suggestion that his administration had not done enough to track down bin Laden. That was certainly a head-scratcher at the time, but it makes some sense if he, too, is desperate to deflect attention from this subject. Was there a botched attempt to nab bin Laden in 2000? Was he a suspect in a millennium plot? Or was a deal made to avert a plot that involved him? Who knows what the details might be, or how justifiable such an action might have been at the time without the perspective of 9/11, but a failure to capture bin Laden--or an arrangement with Pakistan to let him go or even, God forbid, some communication with bin Laden himself--would be a death knell for the Clintonistas planning to ride back to power on the Hillary '08 bandwagon.
After all, the myth of the escape of UBL from Tora Bora has proven a powerful media tool for the Democrats, and they trot it out regularly to illustrate their point that President Bush is actually soft on terror because he "outsourced" the capture of bin Laden, and the terror master got away. Jed Babbin recently pointed out that this is something of a myth--of the sort that will eventually be debunked when the relevant documents are declassified. Yes, the left has trotted out selectively declassified documentary evidence to support their claim, but it seems pretty clear from the statements of the principals that actually fought the war that this was not the case. One wonders if there are additional and more substantial still-classified documents that support their version of events? Perhaps this explains what may seem the somewhat startling sang froid of various members of the Bush administration when they contemplate their eventual places in history. I wonder if the opposite is true of the Clinton administration? Do they worry that their "Tora Bora" moment will be revealed, and they will in retrospect appear culpable for 9/11?
If I were facing such a revelation, I might be willing to crawl around in the mud after dark to protect myself, too.
Well, we shall see what we shall see. Mr. Berger's lawyer refused to comment on the report to The New York Times, saying that Mr. Berger considered the matter "closed" and was trying to "move on." I believe it, for surely that was the point of the sock caper? To close the door, once and for all, on the mysterious event in 2000? Unfortunately for him and for the President he served, while Mr. Berger might have destroyed those papers, it seems to me that the story is just beginning to open.
« Boeing v. Airbus — Comments (7) | Demetrius Crocker and the War on Terror: Bait and Switch at Salon — Comments (16) »
Not just in his socks. Under a construction trailer, too. 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Not as good as The Pumpkin Patch Papers of old Cold War Fame, but there some who suspect that Berger performed a dead drop.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
I don't think anyone who was being internally honest ever had doubts about the crime. The question was what was the motivation at this point the public at large will forever be denied that insight.
I was under the impression that the Archives made copies of most documents. These copies are distributed to depositiories around the country so that scholars can do research on content without having to travel to "the" Archives unless they need access to the "originals." Maybe I'm confusing this with some other federal depository program.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I think that's the practice for de-classified documents--the "secret" stuff that Berger had special clearance to review for the 9/11 commission would be more closely guarded.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
in thinking about you could be right. Although even there the nature of an "Archive" would seem to me to demand that at least one secure copy was locked away somewhere --- buildings do catch fire. And the Archives are in DC which was a nuclear target for decades :-)
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Mr. Burglar, a Cornell and Harvard law school grad, holder of various prestigious positions, crawling around a trailer to hide papers the "commission already had". Now that sounds plausible. The news media formerly known as "journalists" should be ashamed if they let this one slide.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
Don't forget the part about stuffing the documents in his socks, and that he crawled around under the trailer "after dark." I mean, doesn't everyone do it?
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
...Dr. Seuss tribute by Glenn Beck, for Sandy Burglar:
You should not, could not, put docs in your socks.
...front and center on page 19 with the devastating accusation that Berger was "unsubtle".
Heh. Swap Berger for Hadley and the story would have been page 1 with a headline accusation reeking of BDS conspiracy, cover-up and collusion.
--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
This is an example of why the republicans lost the last election. Was there any sustained uproar in the republican house or senate, no. Just a few bitches and screams but the leaders did not follow through, expecting the msm to do it. If this was a high level bush official the democrats would have exploited it again and again, never letting the public (voters) forget it. The democrats know how to play politics and our leadership still thinks it is a gentleman's sport. We had our chance to set the game rules when we had control of both houses but we wanted to play fair, which isn't how to get attention and results when the msm is not on your side. To me the 2008 election is meaningless if the leadership is still the same in it's actions.
This should have been investigated by a joint comnmission. Imagine the former Administration trying to steal and directly manipulate govt. docs.
Why wasn't he fried? This was a real conspiracy. This was real high crime.
Who put that rat bastid up to it? Who helped him? Who guided him? How was the archive compromised? Why did he get off with a slap on the wrist? why is he not being tried for obstruction, conspiracy, theft, espionage, etc?
Their path to bigger and better things lies with and through the democrat party. Would anyone seriously expect them to help out the people they rightly view as their enemies ?
Our guys know this. They just got too big for their britches being congressional or senatorial. Instead of getting involved in the messy and dirty business of holding the Democrats feat to the fire.
That really make me start to wonder what kind of banana republic we've become. I can guarantee that if you or I did the same thing, there would be at least a decade in prison in the cards. People like Sandy Burglar, part of the ruling class, can get away with pretty much anything.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Think about it for a moment. What if you took documents from the national archives, and not just classified documents, but any documents, and you were caught with said documents in your possession outside of the archive building, with evidence that you had also destroyed several of the items you stole.
You would be in jail; in fact you would be in jail until 2020 or longer. Why did Sandy Berger get a pass on a crime that would send you or me, or any of the other 300 million of us to federal prison for a 10 to 15 year term? It like being charged for robbing a liquor store at gunpoint, and getting plead down to a parking ticket.
The other thing I want to know is what was in those documents? Why take such crazy incredible risk to steal them. Everybody assumes that he only stole and destroyed copies, but why would he bother stealing and destroying copies? Was Mr. Berger just plain stupid? I faith in President Clinton’s judgment, so I cannot for a moment believe that a man like President Clinton would hire “Inspector Clouseau” to work as his national security advisor.
I am thinking that Mr. Berger did believe he had original documents. There may have been margin notations on the documents that do not copy easily. I knew of a common practice to use purple markers on documents to make photocopy of those handwritten portions difficult. Perhaps Mr. Berger had a similar habit, and that he was presented with the original documents as those were the only way the original margin notes would appear, and these are the documents he stole, and subsequently destroyed the incriminating remarks. That would make me believe why he took such risks.
These news makes me ashamed of being an American. And it seems to happen in all administration.
In 2001 two FAA managers destroyed tapes of conversations of traffic controllers with the 9/11 planes.
We should make sure we express our outrage at this incident so that the left does not accuse us of fake outrage, or exclusively being outraged when these events occcur under a Democratic administration.
Both Berger and those FAA officials should be in jail now.
Bless you streiff.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
But one could be charitable and assume this is just another documented example of the Clinton crew's well-known problem with - documents. My favorite is the subpoenaed files that turned up in the WH. Hillary's attitude: "Oh, I'm just such a blond bubblehead, I never could deal with files."
The question that interests me far more is what was in the documents he destroyed?
Of course, Berger, WJC & Company could have been very uneasy that the 911 Commission might assign significant culpability to them, so they'd naturally want to review the written records in order to beginning spinning their innocence. And Berger and his lawyer say that "all" documents were eventually delivered to the Commission. But Sandy already had full access to their contents -- more than sufficient for spin prep reasons -- so the amateur spycraft makes no sense for that reason.
It only makes sense if there were particularly incriminating documents that were stolen, destroyed and, consequently, never seen by the Commission. And isn't it a small logical extension to suggest that the secrets must have been something BIG?
So, consistent with previous comments in this thread, I'd like to know (a) if there are permanent archival copies elsewhere, and (b) who else was in a position to know what was in those documents, and shouldn't they be deposed? Having settled the Berger case -- oh so lightly, may I add -- the federal prosecutors probably squandered their best leverage to extend the investigation.
(BTW, even the genealogical records that the Mormons maintain in Salt Lake City are famously backed up in underground bunkers, and these are records whose historical value is miniscule by comparison.)
At this stage, I guess I'll just have to consign the Berger papers with HRC's commodities speculation records, the Whitewater papers, the Rose law firm billings, Vince Foster's notes, and the many other imponderables of the WJC era.
Qué lástima!
Bellinghamster
And lest we forget he stuck papers down his pants as well.
Why, I recall leaving the office two nights ago when I just stuck a whole three ring binder my pants and walked out - we all do it all the time. ;~)
Now the papers end up in his socks. I wonder if Sandy burgler used his shirt or perhaps coat sleeves, a hat! And we will never know what documents he just ate while he was in the Archives.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
[Next time use a different email domain when you want to sockpuppet. Extra points for the different IPs, though. - Moe Lane]
Berger removed these documents and lied. Notice the pattern?
These docs had personal notations incriminating this clown of malfeasance that Burglar and other senior Clintoon types had scribbled in the margins or by underlining.
Can you imagine the brouhaha that would have ensued had it been a Repub stealing docs? After the Plame flame-out over precisely nothing? neville up above is of course silly, but the MSM is colluding in the crimes of the left and inventing crimes by the right. Billy Jeff and his crew are a left-wing cabal supported by the LAT and NYT and the pilot fish.
Like his boss Billy Jeff, Berger is a liar through and through, and guilty of a felony that should bar him from classified documents for life. He is a criminal.
Of course, the NYT won't cover this. It isn't news unless it hurts Bush and Repubs.
Maybe Berger should run for Congress in NOLA, and I hope the National Archives checked Sandy Burglar's freezer for those missing docs.
I heard someone comment on Berger's past as a lobbyist (which obviously qualifies him to be a Ntl Sec. Adv. I guess). This person was on the Hannity radio show yesterday. He talked about Berger's work for the Chinese and the irony of the info that went missing under the Clinton Admn. I would love to see this story regain momentum and actually lead to another investigation. They certainly love to investigate Republicans. A little turnabout would be sweet.
Needless to say, I was disgusted to learn this about Bergers past (not to mention that he was appointed Ntl Sec. Adv. with little or NO exp)
Then Lanny Davis (the epitome of bleeding-heart-liberal) came on Hannity to defend Berger's "terrible mistake".
I was still disgusted.
Berger should be in jail! The Judge on FOXNews says he should have got at least 7 years.
From CNN to NYTimes to my smalltown paper and even on the liberal blogs, this story is getting attention.
I share in the consternation and outrage about Berger's conduct and light sentence.
But what about the prosecutor's conduct here? Why did he enter into such a weak deal? And why bury disclosure of the underlying facts for so long?