Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
'SOCKS DOCS' PROBERS PUSH ON
By DEBORAH ORIN
August 1, 2004 -- The criminal probe into how and why former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger illegally sneaked classified documents out of the National Archives is going forward despite a report that no originals are missing, officials say.
"The investigation continues. It's irrelevant whether or not there are originals missing. What matters is that removing classified documents without authorization is illegal," a government official said.
The Wall Street Journal on Friday quoted National Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper as saying her agency is "confident" that no originals are lost but she couldn't be reached and other officials declined to confirm that claim.
The "socks docs" probe is examining whether Berger broke the law by sneaking out documents, possibly in his socks.
The flap forced Berger to step down as a foreign-policy adviser to Democrat John Kerry a few weeks ago.
At issue are multiple drafts of a review of the millennium threat that's said to sharply rap the Clinton administration and outline 29 steps for better national security. Sources say Bill Clinton as president took only one step out of the 29.
Berger admits taking documents and unauthorized notes out of a classified reading room but says it was an "honest" mistake while vetting materials for the 9/11 commission. He says he accidentally destroyed some.
Reporters Love Sandy Berger
By Cliff Kincaid | August 6, 2004
Now we know why the press has played down the revelations about Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger removing highly classified documents from the National Archives in violation of the law and then destroying or losing some of them. John Harris of the Washington Post reports that Berger was "well-liked" by "White House and foreign policy reporters." That was demonstrated when the Berger scandal broke. The Post did not play the story on page one. It went back on page two. The New York Times was worse, putting it at the bottom of page 16.
The word "removing" sounds better than "steal" or "theft." Harris, however, claimed that Berger "left the Archives building with copies of documents that were supposed to remain there..." That's a curious formulation. Did they just stick to his clothes? Were they post-it notes that he sat on? Berger says it was inadvertent or accidental. And Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman.
In an editorial, the Post called them "secret" or "classified" and said their removal was "improper." The editorial, however, also dealt with allegations that news of the probe of Berger was leaked to embarrass the Democrats. The New York Times also tried to shift the blame to the Republicans, saying that White House denials about a role in the leak "would sound more credible if it assigned some urgency to solving the C.I.A. leak case."
But that's the Joe Wilson case, which has been turned completely on its head. A probe was launched into who provided the name of his CIA wife, Valerie Plame, to columnist Bob Novak. The name was provided because she was suspected of playing a role in getting her husband to undertake that mission to Africa to investigate the Iraq-uranium connection. Wilson had strongly denied that. Now we know, thanks to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, that she did recommend him for the trip, violating federal nepotism laws. It's Plame and Wilson who should be under investigation. But the Times is not interested in probing that.
The Berger line, through his lawyers, is that the documents were copies, not originals, and that he didn't stuff them into his socks. But we don't really know for sure. In an on-line Washington Post discussion with readers, Dana Priest of the Post was asked, "I have read every article I could find on the matter, and I haven't found a single definitive report on the crucial questiondid Berger take originals from the archive, or copies?" Priest replied, "He did not take the originals."
But someone then pointed out that John Harris of the Post had said, at one point in his comments or coverage of the scandal, that "we don't have 100 percent confidence" that the documents were copies. The question to Priest then was: "how is it that you have 100 percent confidence ?" Her reply, "Good question. I believe I read that they were copies in The Washington Post." So the confusion remains. And we doubt that journalists who were the recipients of Berger's leaks when he was in the Clinton administration will want to get to the bottom of it. Berger's good relations with the press will keep the story off the front pages.
Editorial: No defense for Sandy Berger
An editorial
August 21, 2004
Democrats in Congress, particularly Democrats who oppose the Bush administration's misguided war with Iraq, make a huge mistake when they attempt to defend Sandy Berger, who served as former President Bill Clinton's national security adviser and who now stands accused of stealing and destroying classified materials on terrorism.
Berger has for many years been an atrocious player in American politics. He tried to get former Clinton to launch a war with Iraq in the late 1990s, using "evidence" every bit as flimsy as that employed by the Bush administration in 2003. He has been a Democratic apologist for some of the Bush administration's worst abuses. And, as a senior adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, he pressured the presumptive Democratic nominee to echo the Bush administration line on maintaining the occupation of Iraq.
In 2003, when Berger was preparing to testify before the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he spent roughly 30 hours reviewing classified materials in a secure reading room. Berger was seen placing documents in a leather portfolio and stuffing papers in his jacket and pants.
Berger claims his removal of the documents, which may have contained material harmful to his own reputation, was an "honest mistake." Yet, when National Archives officials demanded that Berger return the documents and paperwork, he produced only some of them and then claimed to have "inadvertently" destroyed the rest. Berger's actions were shocking. And his defenses do not sound credible.
Berger should be prosecuted, just as anyone in the Bush administration who attempted to undermine the work of the 9/11 commission should be prosecuted. Yet some of the Democrats who have been most critical of Bush administration abuses have tried to come up with excuses for Berger. By rushing to the partisan barricades in defense of Berger, they are making a big mistake.
While it may be true that Republicans are ginning up the Berger controversy at this point in order to cover for the misdeeds of members of their own party, Democrats should not waste an ounce of energy defending the former Clinton aide.
In fact, Democrats should be celebrating the fact that he has been forced to resign as an adviser to Kerry. The further Berger is from the Kerry campaign, the more likely it will be to take responsible stands on the war in Iraq in particular, and on national security in general.
I'll have the Sandy Berger and a side of lies
Posted: August 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
I was under the naive impression that Clinton administration scandals would end once the Clinton administration ended. Even I, someone who has not exactly had her eyes closed to Clinton-era buffoonery, did not imagine that the most corrupt administration in the history of the country would find a way to keep having scandals while out of office.
But poor old Sandy Berger ends up in hot water long after everyone's gone home. Someday we'll be reading about Clinton officials causing incidents in nursing homes. (Which Clinton administration official do you imagine that might involve?)
continued in link above
insein said:an op-ed on the matter by Cliff Kinkaid
Pretty good summary of the situation. Berger stealing highly classified documents was the republicans fault. Sounds an awful lot like the problem SBVFT are facing. The media is attacking them because its the Republicans funding them. Nevermind the actual seriousness of the charge or the validity of the claims. They are refuted because they are linked to Republicans (even though neither were).
insein said:There are alot more people in the last decade alone who have begun to question the media's motives and have turned to alternative sources for information in order to see the whol picture. Im afraid that we are still fighting an uphill battle against media control.
insein said:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39813
An op-ed from the lovely Ann Coulter.
