2004 Another Clinton Administration Scandal

Kathianne said:
Whoever the real source, it is true. More than that, demonstrates the lack of responsibility on the top of DNC.

Rush said he put the papers down his underwear (ugh!) But FoxNews is reporting he stuck them down his socks. Something is rotten in Denmark! One should always wear clean underwear cuz you never know when you might be in an accident or get caught stealing classified documents.
 
little nell said:
Rush said he put the papers down his underwear (ugh!) But FoxNews is reporting he stuck them down his socks. Something is rotten in Denmark! One should always wear clean underwear cuz you never know when you might be in an accident or get caught stealing classified documents.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/350fkind.asp

The Gap
Sandy Berger's pilfering of papers from the archive should be big trouble for the Democrats. Why is the press AWOL?
by Hugh Hewitt
07/22/2004 12:00:00 AM

HERE ARE the two key sentence from yesterdays Washington Post: "[Sandy] 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."

As any lawyer who has ever argued over the contents of a brief knows, the stuff that gets left out can be the most telling material of all--indicative of prejudices and priorities, sensitivities and credibility. Berger's sticky fingers have left a gap in the record of the Clinton administration's response to the growing threat posed by al Qaeda. Unless other files exist with all the same drafts and handwritten notes that Berger destroyed, we will never be able to conclude whether Berger's actions were simply another display of fecklessness and recklessness on an issue of national security, or an attempt to bleach the record of Clinton-era malpractice on matters of terror.

Washington has had to judge gaps in the record before. "[A] few minutes missing from a non-subpoenaed tape hardly seemed worth a second thought," Richard Nixon wrote in his memoir of his reaction on first learning that Rose Mary Woods had deleted a portion of the famous tapes. Nixon would conclude "most people think that my inability to explain the 18 and 1/2-minute gap is the most unbelievable and insulting part of the whole of Watergate." Imaginations ran wild, and Nixon's credibility never recovered.

Now crucial drafts of an important report are missing, and no one has reported if exact duplicates--not "copies"--have been found. Unless and until "red-lined"
versions of the previous and following drafts are produced and compared to the "missing" drafts, we will never know what vanished from the record in Berger's pants. Could it have been a reference to Osama's flight from Sudan, or a warning of airplanes as missiles? No one can know unless some other repository existed for all of the drafts, and only if copies of all handwritten notes exist in that same file.

Reporters who know what a paragraph or two can do to a story and who have seen what a handwritten note can do to a case, are walking away from this story, calmed by the assurances from Berger's lawyer, his friends, and a desperate-not-to-be-discredited commission. Was Rose Woods this well treated? If Condoleezza Rice had stuffed her blouse full of various drafts of pre- 9/11 terrorism reports and then admitted to sloppy work that resulted in the loss of these docs, would promises of copies suffice to quiet a crazed White House press room?

Still wondering about the potential significance of a single draft, or small changes between drafts? Recall that on January 11, 2001, the Los Angeles Times deleted a reference to Juanita Broaddrick from a George Will column on the legacy of Bill Clinton. I caught the censorship on air, and the wave of reader outrage that followed forced an admission of guilt and an apology from the paper. The Times's attempt to hide a single phrase from its readers told you volumes about the paper--and about the significance of Broaddrick to the Clinton legacy.

We will probably never know what Berger erased from the record. The idea that he smuggled sensitive documents and then "lost" them is absurd. If there were "damning admissions against interest," as trial lawyers like to say, among the papers, Berger probably could be counted on to arrange the carrying away and return of enough paper as to obscure the trail and cloak the reference. Why
has the investigation gone on so long? There is a complex paper trail here, and hopefully the government is attempting to recreate everything that was in the archive before Berger scarred it. That will take a long time, perhaps even requiring the fetching of computers and the recreation of electronic transmissions.

But eventually the public needs to know not what was attempted to be excised from the archive--it may be too sensitive to reveal--but only if there was information unique to the draft(s) that Berger lost. If there was, Berger wasn't being sloppy. He was being precise.
 
Maybe the Why?

http://instapundit.com/archives/016711.php

July 22, 2004
TOM MAGUIRE FINDS A NOT-SO-CRYPTIC REFERENCE TO SANDY BERGER in the 9/11 Commission report:


How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.

My guess is that someone would have asked about that, and once on the subject of Berger and missing after-action reports, the story of the criminal investigation could hardly be kept quiet. Hence, a pre-emptive leak by someone close to the commission to avoid distraction. . . .

Well, I'll know I am on to something if I don't see it in the Times tomorrow.

(Emphasis added.) Go there, and follow the links. This just may answer some important questions about what Berger was up to, and why the leak happened when it did.

posted at 04:44 PM by Glenn Reynolds
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10451-2004Jul23.html

Interesting take:

Excerpts:

Sandy Berger: A Case for Accountability

By Colbert I. King
Saturday, July 24, 2004; Page A21


Set aside Republican speculation that former Clinton national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger was trying to hide classified information from the Sept. 11 commission or that he had provided the material to the Kerry campaign. Do likewise with Democratic suspicions that the FBI's investigation of Berger was leaked to distract attention from the commission's report. Those concerns, all unproven, are partisan and secondary. Keep the focus where it belongs. Did Sandy Berger violate the rules regarding the protection of classified information entrusted to him, and if he did, will he be held accountable for his actions?



That's the key test for Washington.

Sandy Berger is a prominent figure among the nation's foreign policy elite. He has friends everywhere, especially where it counts: on Capitol Hill and in the Democratic administration-in-exile holed up in D.C. think tanks and on K Street. He occupies a place of honor in high political circles and among opinion-makers in the press. And he's got clout. Immediately following disclosure about him and the missing National Archives documents, Bill Clinton and John Kerry put in a good word for their friend. And it wasn't for nothing that Berger received this sympathetic characterization in a Post story on Wednesday: "At the same time," wrote our reporter, "[Berger] was known as someone who would constantly lose track of papers or appointments without subordinates to keep him organized and on schedule. 'For all those who know and love him, it's easy to see how this could happen,' one former Clinton colleague said."

A regular Mr. Magoo, that Sandy Berger.

Well, I don't know Berger or even love him except as my neighbor, in accordance with the Scriptures. But I do know that there are men and women in service to our nation who have paid a dear price for their mishandling of classified materials. They, too, were presumably known and loved by others. Nonetheless, their failure to properly safeguard sensitive information landed them in trouble with their government. Should Sandy Berger, because he is connected, be given a pass for taking classified materials out of the National Archives without permission? Should distraction by the cares of the world serve as an adequate defense for the violation of security procedures?
 
"At the same time," wrote our reporter, "[Berger] was known as someone who would constantly lose track of papers or appointments without subordinates to keep him organized and on schedule. 'For all those who know and love him, it's easy to see how this could happen,' one former Clinton colleague said."
If he was so scatterbrained and had to be babysat, why was he holding such an important position in our National Security?
 
Hannitized said:
"At the same time," wrote our reporter, "[Berger] was known as someone who would constantly lose track of papers or appointments without subordinates to keep him organized and on schedule. 'For all those who know and love him, it's easy to see how this could happen,' one former Clinton colleague said." [/qoute]
If he was so scatterbrained and had to be babysat, why was he holding such an important position in our National Security?


And Clinton found it amusing: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040723.shtml
 

Forum List

Back
Top