- Nov 22, 2003
- Reaction score
I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but the whole Berger conviction leaves openings for things like this. The Justice department would have been well advised to have investigated further, closing the door on such:
The secret for which Sandy risked his all
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's Note: Get Jack Cashill's eye-opening "Mega Fix: The Dazzling Political Deceit That Led to 9/11" for only $4.95 a $15 savings but only from WorldNetDaily, and only until Friday at 10 p.m. Pacific.
By Jack Cashill
If not the most skillful of embezzlers, Samuel "Sandy" Berger is a far more formidable character than the media would have us believe. When he made his now-storied sorties into the National Archives, he risked his career and his reputation in so doing, and he knew it. Rest assured, he would not have done so were the secrets to be preserved not worth the risk of pilfering them.
True to form, the major media refuse to even ask the most fundamental question: Just what secrets would justify so much personal exposure? Having read the report on Berger by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, I am more confident than ever that I know the answer.
As the House report makes clear, Berger did not exactly welcome this assignment. This confirms my suspicions. The archivists told the committee, in fact, that Berger "indicated some disgust with the burden and responsibility of conducting the document review."
(Column continues below)
Apparently, he did not have much choice in the matter. Former President Bill Clinton had, according to the report, "designated Berger as his representative to review NSC documents." Berger was Clinton's go-to inside guy.
In his first term, Clinton had hired this millionaire trade lawyer and lobbyist to be deputy national security adviser, not because of Berger's foreign policy experience, which was negligible, but because of his political instincts, which were keen and reliable. Clinton entrusted Berger with some very sensitive assignments, particularly in relationship to China, and rewarded him for his trust with the job of national security adviser in his second term. This job does not require Senate confirmation. It is unlikely that Berger could have gotten any job that did.
As we now know, Berger made four trips to the National Archives. He did so presumably to refresh his memory before testifying first to the Graham-Goss Commission and then to the 9/11 Commission. Berger made his first visit in May 2002, his last in October 2003.
As we now know too, he stole and destroyed an incalculable number of documents during these four visits. "The full extent of Berger's document removal," reports the House committee, "is not known and never can be known."
As the report clarifies, "Archives staff would have no way to know" if any part of a given National Security Council document was removed. Further, had Berger removed papers from a Staff Member Office File these more loosely enumerated than the NSC documents "It would be almost impossible for the Archives staff to know."
Among his more flagrant acts of criminal mischief, Berger purloined some highly classified documents and stashed them "at a construction site where they could have been found by anyone." This behavior does not exactly classify as "inadvertent," the media's original characterization of Berger's motivation.
As the House report also establishes, the FBI never questioned Berger about those first two visits nor submitted him to a polygraph about any of the visits as his plea deal required. The Department of Justice's only source of information about possible theft during Berger's first two visits was the man himself, and Berger has proved almost comically unreliable...