- Nov 22, 2003
- Reaction score
Clinton's Counterterrorism Record [Andy McCarthy]
President Clinton is claiming that his counterterrorism efforts have been misrepresented and deflated. One way to help get an accurate version of history as Mark Levin and I have pointed out repeatedly over the last couple of years goes back to the curious case of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
Berger, of course, was caught in 2004 removing classified documents out of the National Archives. His reason for being there was to review the paper record in preparation for both his own and President Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission.
Berger smuggled documents out of the archives, destroyed at least some of them, and apparently made false statements to investigators about what he'd done. For some reason, the Justice Department allowed him to plead guilty to a mere misdemeanor (Scooter Libby, eat your heart out!). One reason to say, "Damn Bush." Even more astoundingly, the public has never been fully apprised of the documents that were taken so we could evaluate why Berger might have done this. Not at all astoundingly, the mainstream press has been virtually silent and has never demanded disclosure.
It has been publicly reported, by the Washington Post, for example, that what Berger removed were different drafts of the "after action review" written by Richard Clarke (on whom Clinton prominently relied in his diatribe yesterday) which judged how the administration had performed in response various terror plots at the turn of the Millennium.
Did Clarke judge the administration harshly? Were there various drafts because Clarke was pressed to water down some of his original criticisms? We don't know. We've never been told.
Part of the Justice Department's justification for the kit-gloves approach to Berger's prosecution was that no harm had really been done there were copies of even the documents Berger destroyed, so the whole paper record could be reconstructed.
Well fine. Let's see it. Sure, redact out anything that still constitutes sensitive intelligence (hard to believe there's much over five years later, but, of course, intel methods and sources shouldn't be exposed). But how come during the 9/11 Commission hearings the press agitated until the Bush White House finally gave in and disclosed all kinds of highly classified materials ... including a Presidential Daily Briefing memo one of the most closely held intelligence products in the government but we have still, to this day, never seen or had thoroughly explained to us what Sandy Berger took out of the National Archives?
President Clinton wants historical accuracy? By all means, let's have it.
Posted at 2:03 PM