What was Sandy Berger Up To? [Archive]

trebblekicked

Jul 20, 2004, 03:14 PM

Why aren't we talking about this?

http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/index.html

interesting.

everything about this situation seems odd. the circumstances surrounding the missing documents, the fact that there are missing documents in the first place, the fact that multiple unnamed sources were ready to make comment on a story that went suddenly public after being confidential for 9 months, the timing of the publicity in relation to the DNC, etc etc etc.

it's all very fishy. i don't know what to make of it.

2jaded2care

Jul 20, 2004, 03:39 PM

I would think the timing would have more to do with the 9/11 commission's final report coming out this week than the DNC, but what would I know?

I find it interesting the different reporting by CNN vs. Fox:

CNN: "Colleagues Defend Berger in Documents Probe", subheading "Davis: 'A person of impeccable honesty and integrity' ". Link on home page to video: "Berger has "impeccable honesty"...

FoxNews: "Sandy Berger Probed Over Terror Memos", with a link to "Berger Bind Could Hurt Kerry"...

Kinda like the recent poll headlines, where CNN had Kerry with a "solid lead", and Fox had the race "too close to call"...

Hopefully we can agree it's a good thing Berger's the former national security advisor, regardless of whether this was sinister or "sloppiness".

He says he "apparently had accidentally discarded" highly classified documents? Sheesh. The guy should work at Los Alamos.

IJ Reilly

Jul 20, 2004, 03:43 PM

i don't know what to make of it.

Oh, I think you do. :)

This is how GOP talking points are made.

patrick0brien

Jul 20, 2004, 04:31 PM

Oh, I think you do. :)

This is how GOP talking points are made.

-IJ Reilly

Perhaps, but I still can't get the math to add up with this regardless of 'politics as usual'.

It's not like the GOP made this up - Sandy has confirmed as much.

I agree with trebblekicked, this is highly wierd - it's not like Sandy didn't know better than to discard Code Word level docs.

IJ Reilly

Jul 20, 2004, 04:52 PM

2jaded2care

Jul 20, 2004, 05:00 PM

Fox has Berger stepping out of his Kerry campaign role:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126358,00.html

CNN's not there yet.

Looks like whoever leaked it got at least part of what they wanted.

kgarner

Jul 20, 2004, 05:05 PM

It adds up, if you use a cynical political calculator. We don't know what Berger did or didn't do, and we probably wouldn't even have known that questions were being asked if word of the investigation hadn't been leaked from the White House at this opportune moment.
Well we can't say for sure that the leak came form the White House.
The source said the 9/11 commission was briefed on the Berger investigation, but the White House was never informed of the matter.
And we do know that he has thrown away code-word materials.
Berger said Monday that he returned everything he had after the National Archives told him documents were missing, "except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded."
Now I am not saying that the information wasn't leaked for political gain, but I am more concerned with the fact that he appears to be hiding evidence. I am much less concerned that there was a leak from anywhere. Those always exist. I think that this is an important story and I am curious to see what develops from it.

Edit: Quotes are from the article linked to in he first post.

IJ Reilly

Jul 20, 2004, 05:11 PM

The "importance" of this story is purely politics.

The origin of the leak is obvious.

kgarner

Jul 20, 2004, 05:17 PM

The "importance" of this story is purely politics.
If you say so. I still find it intriguing that a high ranking official of a past administration seems to have "inadvertently" discarded highly sensitive documents that he removed from the National Archives whiel gathering information to present to the 9/11 commission.
The origin of the leak is obvious.
While I agree, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support it. ;)

patrick0brien

Jul 20, 2004, 05:23 PM

The "importance" of this story is purely politics.

The origin of the leak is obvious.

-IJ Reilly

Gents, can we pause the politics for a second here? I'm sure we can dribble off into a corner about it as we seem to always do. (I know it's odd to request that in a political forum :D )

My concern here is what had happened. A person who most assuredly knew better, discarded documents of the highest Top Secret clasification. This is admitted to fact.

At this base level the math still leaves a resounding "WTF!?"

If I were carrying around docs of this classification, I would be aware of their location almost to the pain threshold. This is the gap.

2jaded2care

Jul 20, 2004, 05:24 PM

OTOH, Berger's been under DOJ investigation since October. Doesn't seem he's disputing that he improperly took classified material (and misplaced some of it)... And he only extricates himself from the Kerry campaign after it's public?

Sloppy, yes.

blackfox

Jul 20, 2004, 05:53 PM

Not to get off-topic, but this reminds me of the story I read in the NYT, about the report drafted in the UK about the security weaknesses in Heathrow (I believe) that went missing until some citizen found them flapping in the wind on the side of the road and turned them in...needless to say, were these documents to fall into the "wrong" hands, it could have been disastrous...add this to the events at Los Alamos and it would seem you have a trend developing both here and in the UK...cause? Stressed, overworked intelligence personel becoming sloppy, forgetful? Perhaps...I just find it interesting that lately people have begun losing important materials left and right...

sorry for the detour...as for Berger, I suspend judgement till I know more, but the timing does seem politically-motivated...

IJ Reilly

Jul 20, 2004, 06:29 PM

mactastic

Jul 20, 2004, 06:52 PM

Why aren't we talking about this?

We are talking about this. I assume you mean 'why aren't any of you lefties willing to talk about this'. Well for Pete's sake, it just broke this morning (at least that's when I heard about it), and you are the first to post it here. Congratulations.

Anyway, my 2¢. I don't like high government officials that can't keep track of highly classified docs. Whether or not Berger had any other motives, I still have a very hard time accepting sloppiness in handling of sensitive material.

Was the timing of the leak political? Of course, but regardless it still needs to be investigated. It would be nice to account for the missing docs somehow.

LethalWolfe

Jul 20, 2004, 06:55 PM

To everyone who is expressing concern about what Berger may or may not have done, I remind them that it's under investigation, and the only reason we know anything at all about the investigation at this moment in time is because somebody leaked that information to the press. I'd also remind them that the leak included unsubstantiated and anonymous allegations strongly suggesting that whatever Berger did or did not do was intentional and deceitful.

We're discussing a matter about which we know only what was selectively leaked. The fog machine is cranking up. See how well it works?

As far as I can tell everyone here is conceding that the timing of this leak is political in nature. I don't see any "fog machine" taking effect in this thread. So should we should ignore something that should be raising red flags just because of the "odd" timing of its leak?

I think we are smart enough to be able to discuss more than one current event at a time. ;)

Lethal

2jaded2care

Jul 20, 2004, 07:29 PM

Not quite ready to confess to fogging things up here... ;-)

But I will apologize for using the verb "extricate", which is a "loaded" word and implies something I didn't intend -- I was in a hurry with that post, and not as careful as I should have been. (Hey, I'm allowed to be sloppy in this context, right?)

And that's more apology than you'll ever get from CNN or Fox...

patrick0brien

Jul 20, 2004, 10:17 PM

We're discussing a matter about which we know only what was selectively leaked. The fog machine is cranking up. See how well it works?

-IJ Reilly

Exactly, that's why I was hoping we could stick to the facts we do know, and the ones from Sandy's own mouth are pretty good.

-mactastic

I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. It was an honest question.

You've often tried to jump on things I've said in past conversation despite my sincere efforts to remain diplomatic. I get the feeling you have quite the chip on your shoulder, please look into it. It is difficult to have an open and constructive conversation with you.

mactastic

Jul 20, 2004, 10:21 PM

Was I wrong? Were you not inserting that into this forum in such a way as to insinuate some of us would prefer not to discuss this? Because if you really wonder why something that has only been in the news for a couple hours hasn't been picked over by us, I'm not always able to post things I see right away.

Why aren't we discussing ANY of the things people start threads about? Isn't that why you start a thread?

patrick0brien

Jul 20, 2004, 10:22 PM

Was I wrong?

-mactastic

Yes, you were wrong.

I go out of my way to avoid garnering a topic spill-off that descends into political yelling, and do what I can in the conversations I contribute to to try to steer it back to the point.

I think you know that about me.

We, out here on the west coast get up a little later than the rest of the country so I was surprised that there was nobody talking about it.

mactastic

Jul 20, 2004, 10:26 PM

-mactastic

Yes, you were wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time. ;)

But seriously, you are one of the people who comes down on us partisans for 'spinning' the issues. I felt you spun that one coming in, there are lots of other ways to get discussion going.

patrick0brien

Jul 20, 2004, 10:30 PM

Wouldn't be the first time. ;)

But seriously, you are one of the people who comes down on us partisans for 'spinning' the issues. I felt you spun that one coming in, there are lots of other ways to get discussion going.

-mactastic

Ok, I see that. I just wish I didn't have to walk on eggshells around here.

BTW- I could have sworn I heard this story yesterday as I left work, but I can't nail down the time right now.

mactastic

Jul 20, 2004, 10:38 PM

Ok, I see that. I just wish I didn't have to walk on eggshells around here.

Lol, at least you know how I feel around here sometimes too.

BTW- I could have sworn I heard this story yesterday as I left work, but I can't nail down the time right now.

Apparently it's been around for a while, if they've been investigating this for a while you know SOMEONE's known about it for some time. I heard the news reports this morning on the west coast. Wasn't watching the news the evening before, so sometime between then and this morning the story broke into the mainstream media. Like I said above, I'm not real happy about high government officials not being able to keep track of secret docs, but without evidence of ulterior motives besides sloppiness this is pretty much a non-issue. Berger wouldn't be the first person to do something like this.

IJ Reilly

Jul 21, 2004, 12:02 AM

Exactly, that's why I was hoping we could stick to the facts we do know, and the ones from Sandy's own mouth are pretty good.

Fine, but I don't want to hear about how this is an "important story." In fact it's an almost entirely synthetic story, and we going to see once again how easily we can be distracted from the far more important stuff coming this week.

LethalWolfe

Jul 21, 2004, 12:34 AM

Fine, but I don't want to hear about how this is an "important story." In fact it's an almost entirely synthetic story, and we going to see once again how easily we can be distracted from the far more important stuff coming this week.

So someone hi up in the government "losing" (I use quotes 'cause we don't know if it was accidental or not) documents that are super-classified is not important?

Again, I don't understand why you are discourging people from discussing this. When the 9/11 Comission and DNC threads pop up I'm sure they will be throughly populated. I don't think people are gonna stick to this thread and comment about nothing else that happens in the coming days. I have complete faith that people, at least in this forum, can discuss multiple current events at a time.

We all know the timig of this leak is politcal ploy but that doesn't mean we should ignore it outright.

Lethal

blackfox

Jul 21, 2004, 12:35 AM

Fine, but I don't want to hear about how this is an "important story." In fact it's an almost entirely synthetic story, and we going to see once again how easily we can be distracted from the far more important stuff coming this week.
How do you mean IJ? while I concede that I do not know the particulars, (indeed no-one does at this point), it does seem fact that Berger walked off with documents possibly related to relevant National Security issues...this does raise an eyebrow, as being the cynical soul I am, it seems that the motives couldn't be entirely innocent. But, like I said, I don't know enough yet...but this could be important stuff.

Are you saying it is synthetic because of the relative lack of hard facts about the scenario, making it easy for some to paint whatever picture they like for the moment? Or am I missing something?

The fact that the GOP/Bush Administration has timed this to distract from other more important and relevant (not to mention current) events, is a major issue, much like the plan to ram a Tax-cut through during the week of the DNC, or the latest concentration on Iran (I could go on and on...). This does not mean that this is not important news, and the media has often gone off half-cocked.

I assume you are taking issue with the fact that hard, important evidence critical of the Administration is being given a back seat to as-yet-not-hard evidence critical of a past one...like I said, this can really annoy the hell out of those who care about the relevant truth, but is hardly a new tactic for the GOP PR machine...

I still think this is an interesting issue...(I think we agree, but I am confused)

IJ Reilly

Jul 21, 2004, 12:51 AM

I think I can answer the last two questions together.

No, I am not "discouraging" anyone from talking about this story. I am simply pointing out that a perfectly proper AG investigation was leaked to the press for what appears to be entirely partisan political purposes. The idea is to start a media firestorm at what is otherwise an unfavorable political moment for the Bush administration. They're trying to suck as much air as possible out of the room.

LethalWolfe

Jul 21, 2004, 01:29 AM

Sayhey

Jul 21, 2004, 08:56 AM

mactastic

Jul 21, 2004, 09:58 AM

Seems to me that if Bush is OK demanding to know the names of the foreign leaders that want Kerry to win, then they should be completely forthcoming with the name of the person that is accusing Berger of stuffing documents in his socks. But somehow I'm sure they'll see this differently....

pseudobrit

Jul 21, 2004, 11:41 AM

LethalWolfe

Jul 21, 2004, 12:38 PM

Can I ask a question folks. If I read the story correctly, Berger is accused of taking copies of top secret documents with him, along with notes he made, out of a secure area. He may have destroyed some of those copies. Now, how does someone cover up something (the implied crime he is supposed to have done) by destroying copies?

There is a fair amount to this that isn't unclear. But even if he just destroyed copies, and not originals, he still took highly classified docs, and his notes, out w/him. Which are both big no-no's. Berger, plus Los Alamos (again), plus the UK docs found on the ground outside the airport (Heathrow?) just has me going :eek: :rolleyes:. This is top-secret stuff. Not your car keys or the remote to the TV. I realize we are all only human and we make mistakes, but c'mon. A little more vigilence<sp?> please.

I think the more people work with\around classified material they might become lax in their handling of it because "classified" is common place to them. I remember a few years ago when MI6 (MI5?) had two "company" laptops lost or stolen w/in a very short time of each other. One was left in a cab by a drunk agent (d'oh) and returned by the cabie w/o incident. The other was stolen by a common theif at a trainstation (the agent bent down to tie his shoe or something like that and a guy snagged his laptop bag when he wasn't looking).

Lethal

Sayhey

Jul 21, 2004, 01:01 PM

There is a fair amount to this that isn't unclear. But even if he just destroyed copies, and not originals, he still took highly classified docs, and his notes, out w/him. Which are both big no-no's. Berger, plus Los Alamos (again), plus the UK docs found on the ground outside the airport (Heathrow?) just has me going :eek: :rolleyes:. This is top-secret stuff. Not your car keys or the remote to the TV. I realize we are all only human and we make mistakes, but c'mon. A little more vigilence<sp?> please.

I think the more people work with\around classified material they might become lax in their handling of it because "classified" is common place to them. I remember a few years ago when MI6 (MI5?) had two "company" laptops lost or stolen w/in a very short time of each other. One was left in a cab by a drunk agent (d'oh) and returned by the cabie w/o incident. The other was stolen by a common theif at a trainstation (the agent bent down to tie his shoe or something like that and a guy snagged his laptop bag when he wasn't looking).

Lethal

Lethal,

don't get me wrong, what Berger did was obviously, at best, irresponsible behavior in the handling of classified documents. However, the innuendo being spread by the GOP (look at Santorum's statements) is just plain absurd. There is no evidence of a cover-up of Clinton administration action (as I said destroying copies - he said he lost one document - doesn't accomplish anything), and no one is even trying to say he turned these over to enemies. So what is the possible motive for doing this "terrible" thing? I think the best one can come up with, assuming you don't accept his explanation of it being an accident, is that Berger was overzealous in his attempt to prepare for his 9/11 commission testimony. This is front page news? My paranoia sparks concerns about Republicans using this story to try and blunt the impact of the impending release of the Commission report - which seems an awful lot more important than Sandy Berger's handling of a few documents.

IJ Reilly

Jul 21, 2004, 01:02 PM

All of which goes to show that you can't have perfect security without total secrecy, and you can't have total secrecy and still have a democracy.

LethalWolfe

Jul 21, 2004, 02:21 PM

Lethal,

don't get me wrong, what Berger did was obviously, at best, irresponsible behavior in the handling of classified documents. However, the innuendo being spread by the GOP (look at Santorum's statements) is just plain absurd. There is no evidence of a cover-up of Clinton administration action (as I said destroying copies - he said he lost one document - doesn't accomplish anything), and no one is even trying to say he turned these over to enemies. So what is the possible motive for doing this "terrible" thing? I think the best one can come up with, assuming you don't accept his explanation of it being an accident, is that Berger was overzealous in his attempt to prepare for his 9/11 commission testimony. This is front page news? My paranoia sparks concerns about Republicans using this story to try and blunt the impact of the impending release of the Commission report - which seems an awful lot more important than Sandy Berger's handling of a few documents.

Sayhey,

I think yer reading too much into my posts. I'm not trying to lead a "Berger is Satan" campaign. Heck only two lines in my previous post had to do w/him.

On one hand it does sound like completely bonehead mistake and a flat out unacceptable way to handle highly classified documents. One the other hand if was just a plain and simple mistake why such a long, and still on going, investigation?

At this point there is no reason to be alarmist or dissmissive<sp?> towards his actions. We just don't have enough info.

And, again, we all agree that the timing of this leak was politically motivated. No one here, as far as I've seen, has disputed that.

IJ,
I'll take it one step farther. You can't have perfect security if there are people involved. Damn humans always seem to be the weak link in the chain. ;)

-Lethal

Sayhey

Jul 21, 2004, 02:39 PM

Sayhey,

I think yer reading too much into my posts. I'm not trying to lead a "Berger is Satan" campaign. Heck only two lines in my previous post had to do w/him.

On one hand it does sound like completely bonehead mistake and a flat out unacceptable way to handle highly classified documents. One the other hand if was just a plain and simple mistake why such a long, and still on going, investigation?

At this point there is no reason to be alarmist or dissmissive<sp?> towards his actions. We just don't have enough info.

And, again, we all agree that the timing of this leak was politically motivated. No one here, as far as I've seen, has disputed that....
-Lethal

Sorry, Lethal, if I sounded like I was attributing support for the accusations against Berger to you. I was only trying to say that I agreed with you that Berger's handling of the documents was very poor at best, and then go on to what I thought it did and/or didn't mean. I don't take you as a "disciple" of Santorum or any of the rest of them.

IJ Reilly

Jul 21, 2004, 03:57 PM

The righteous indignation begins, right on cue:

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he was "profoundly troubled" by the allegations and said he found Berger's explanation suspicious. He also questioned whether it was part of an effort to conceal information from the commission.

"What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?" Hastert asked. "Did these documents detail simple negligence, or did they contain something more sinister?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-berger21jul21,1,1752358.story

Durandal7

Jul 22, 2004, 02:07 AM

Curiouser and curiouser...

After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4189-2004Jul21?language=printer

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger repeatedly persuaded monitors assigned to watch him review top-secret documents to break the rules and leave him alone, sources said Wednesday.

Berger, accused of smuggling some of the secret files out of the National Archives, got the monitors out of the high-security room by telling them he had to make sensitive phone calls.

Guards were convinced to violate their own rules by stepping out of the secure room as he looked over documents and allegedly stashed some in his clothing, sources said.

"He was supposed to be monitored at all times but kept asking the monitor to leave so he could make private calls," a senior law enforcement source told the Daily News.

Berger also took "lots of bathroom breaks" that aroused some suspicion, the source added. It is standard procedure to constantly monitor anyone with a security clearance who examines the type of code-word classified files stored in the underground archives vault.
http://www.news-leader.com/today/0722-Guardsleft-138802.html

G4scott

Jul 22, 2004, 03:42 AM

woah, woah, woah... woah....

Am I hearing this correctly?

Are there people out there who actually think this whole story was made up by the GOP fog machine?

Berger removed, and supposedly "lost" the draft, and all versions of the millennium memo; Clinton's response to terrorism threats at the turn of the millennium. Nowhere in any article did I read they were just "copies." It's obvious that Berger didn't take the documents to give to someone else, but rather to get rid of them.

Meanwhile, Clinton claims they laughed about it, and blew it off as another plot written by the "republicans." I'm sorry, Mr. Clinton, but this is no laughing matter.

Politically motivated? Most certainly, but any politician, republican or democrat, would do it if they had the chance. Sorry guys, but Republicans aren't the only people guilty of it.

It stuns me, though, that people are more appalled by the timing of it and the fact that it was leaked, rather than the actual things Berger is being accused of doing. By removing any documents related to the Clinton administration's terrorism response plans, Berger is keeping information from the 9/11 commission. Why he would do anything like that is anybody's guess. Could he be trying to cover up problems with Clinton's anti-terrorism plans? Who knows? Maybe not, but what he did was wrong, and it reeks of scandal. Everyone should be alarmed, because what he did reduced the effectiveness of the 9/11 commission's ability to reach its goal. He is keeping the commission from seeing the whole picture leading up to 9/11, and that enough should be alarming to people.

I think with the 9/11 commission's report due soon, it should be brought to our attention that something like this has happened. It has the possibility to affect the outcome of the 9/11 commission's report, and should be considered when reviewing it. I find it hard to see why this info being leaked is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe the timing of it has to do more with the release date of the 9/11 commission's report than partisan politics. While I find this somewhat unlikely, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. Maybe somebody just wants us to take the 9/11 commission's report with a rather large grain of salt. In a sea of agents, witnesses, and everyone else involved in an investigation, I can see how easy it is for anybody involved to spill the beans. Besides, maybe these beans needed to be spilled...

patrick0brien

Jul 22, 2004, 03:45 AM

Curiouser and curiouser...

-Durandal7

Boy, I'll bet Kerry is pissed. "Gee boss, by the way, I'm under criminal investigation and I'm only telling you now."

Lyle

Jul 22, 2004, 08:47 AM

Berger also took "lots of bathroom breaks" that aroused some suspicion, the source added.I for one question the timing of those leaks.

kgarner

Jul 22, 2004, 09:10 AM

I for one question the timing of those leaks.
:D

Sayhey

Jul 22, 2004, 10:14 AM

woah, woah, woah... woah....

Am I hearing this correctly?

Are there people out there who actually think this whole story was made up by the GOP fog machine?

Berger removed, and supposedly "lost" the draft, and all versions of the millennium memo; Clinton's response to terrorism threats at the turn of the millennium. Nowhere in any article did I read they were just "copies." It's obvious that Berger didn't take the documents to give to someone else, but rather to get rid of them....

From the AP report on the story:

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement to the AP.

Berger served as Clinton's national security adviser for all of the president's second term and most recently has been informally advising Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites). Clinton asked Berger last year to review and select the administration documents that would be turned over to the commission.

The FBI searched Berger's home and office with warrants earlier this year after employees of the National Archives told agents they believed they witnessed Berger put documents into his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers, officials said.

When asked, Berger said he returned some of the classified documents, which he found in his office, and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but said he could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.

emphasis added

AP (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040720/ap_on_re_us/sept__11_berger_probe_2&printer=1)

If you have a different story saying he had the originals and no copies had been made, please post a link to it.

By the way, no one is saying that Berger didn't do something he shouldn't have done. At this point that looks like sloppy handling of classified documents. What people are raising is the timing of the leaks as well as the spin being put on the story by the "GOP fog machine."

G4scott

Jul 22, 2004, 02:19 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4189-2004Jul21?language=printer

At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.

emphasis added...

If he just took copies, I don't think there would be this large of an FBI investigation going on...

As far as this just being noise by the GOP fog machine... Remember the Illinois state senator Jack Ryan, who was running for the US Senate? The democrats and the media, forced him out of the race, by bringing up unproved allegations from his divorce. His divorce had nothing to do with national security, and it was all very frivolous, but it created enough of a problem to cause him to drop out of the race. Say hello to the DNC Spin Machine... If that was such a big issue, even though his divorce had nothing to do with his ability to be a Senator, then why isn't the whole Berger thing a big issue with the democrats? I bet if it was Rumsfeld who "misplaced" a confidential document, democrats would be on it like white on rice...

zimv20

Jul 22, 2004, 03:01 PM

The democrats and the media, forced him out of the race, by bringing up unproved allegations from his divorce. [...] Say hello to the DNC Spin Machine...
eh? the dems were mostly silent on the issue. it was the GOP who drummed him out. if anything, the dems wanted him to stay in the race, since it'd probably be an easy barak victory.

Sayhey

Jul 22, 2004, 04:36 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4189-2004Jul21?language=printer

emphasis added...

If he just took copies, I don't think there would be this large of an FBI investigation going on...

As far as this just being noise by the GOP fog machine... Remember the Illinois state senator Jack Ryan, who was running for the US Senate? The democrats and the media, forced him out of the race, by bringing up unproved allegations from his divorce. His divorce had nothing to do with national security, and it was all very frivolous, but it created enough of a problem to cause him to drop out of the race. Say hello to the DNC Spin Machine... If that was such a big issue, even though his divorce had nothing to do with his ability to be a Senator, then why isn't the whole Berger thing a big issue with the democrats? I bet if it was Rumsfeld who "misplaced" a confidential document, democrats would be on it like white on rice...

My understanding is that the gave him copies. We will have to wait and see how this plays out as more information comes out. If he did just take copies it is still a problem, but not anywhere near as nefarious as Berger's GOP critics are trying to make it out to be. And you are right if confidential memos are misplaced it is a big deal - it just doesn't mean that a coverup is going on. Heck, it is even possible that Bush's military records were lost and not purposefully destroyed. ;)

zim's right about the Ryan campaign revelations. Not that Democrats don't ever use materials that have little to do with the subject at hand, this is just not a good example.

patrick0brien

Jul 22, 2004, 05:48 PM

Sayhey

Jul 23, 2004, 01:48 AM

-About the copies thing

A copy of a classified document retains the same classification of the original, it just means that it is removable from the premesis with proper clearance to do so. Copies are often watched a lot closer than the originals due to this fact as the originals never leave the Archives without an act of congress. It's the copies that worry people.

However, it does affect the suggestions of coverup.

I agree with you patrick that regardless of the copy or original question his conduct is troublesome, if only in his sloppiness with documents that need to be handled carefully.

Here is a conversation on CNN with two of the commission members that sheds some light on the subject of a possible cover up.

DOBBS: Let me ask you, not necessarily directly on point, but certainly related. Sandy Berger, the former head of the national security -- national security adviser under the Clinton administration, accused of, and admitting taking classified documents from the National Archives, those notes, whether copies or originals still unclear. Did the commission review that material, to what -- can you shed any light on what happened there? Slade Gorton, first.

GORTON: Well, we can't shed any light on exactly what happened there and on Sandy Berger's troubles with the Justice Department and the Archives. What we can say unequivocally is we had all of that information. We have every one of those documents. All of them have -- are infused in and are a part of our report.

DOBBS: So the commission was denied no information as a result of whatever Sandy Berger did or did not do at the National Archives?

GORTON: That's precisely correct.

GORELICK: And we have been so assured by the Justice Department.

DOBBS: Jamie Gorelick, Slade Gorton, we thank you both. And again, our congratulations, and thanks for your service to the country.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/22/ldt.00.html)

Not much of a cover up it seems to me.

Durandal7

Jul 23, 2004, 02:05 AM

-Durandal7

Boy, I'll bet Kerry is pissed. "Gee boss, by the way, I'm under criminal investigation and I'm only telling you now."

I'm sure he is. After making port security a major campaign issue the last thing he needed was Sandy to be lining his pants with classified memos on port security and failing to mention it. Very sloppy indeed.

I have to say, the thing that bothers me the most about this is the fact that a National Security Advisor was known for "sloppiness", absent-mindedness and losing papers on a regular basis. Even worse is the fact that the President he served under thinks it's funny. :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly

Jul 23, 2004, 10:28 AM

Not much of a cover up it seems to me.

Good God there man, can't you see it? This is the worst kind of cover-up of all -- it's a bloody consipracy!

IJ Reilly

Jul 23, 2004, 11:56 AM

MMFA posted a nice overview of how the unsubstantiated allegations that Berger stole documents to hide them from the Commission and stuffed them in his socks became "facts" through repetition:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230001

You'll rarely see a better, or more obvious, example of how the smear machine functions.

2jaded2care

Jul 26, 2004, 09:22 PM

Thanks for the link, IJ. I had been wondering myself whether Berger had supposedly put documents in his pants, as described by the AP and CNN, or in his pants pockets, which would not seem as incriminating. Apparently he admits to having done neither.

Of course, your source I would not consider unbiased... but I cannot understand how both the AP and CNN would be so careless as to use the description "jacket and pants" (or "socks"!) if they meant (however accurately or not) "jacket and pants pockets". Not saying I don't believe it could or did happen, just saying it would be astoundingly "sloppy" reporting, if so.

Personally, I can understand how such poor description opens the door to insinuating commentary. Careless people might absent-mindedly put papers in their pockets or in another pile of papers -- once or twice. If it's more often than that, or if papers are thrust into one's pants or socks, that's arguably intentional, whatever the agenda.

Guess we'll see how it all plays out.

Sayhey

Jul 30, 2004, 01:21 PM

I got this off Atrios' (http://atrios.blogspot.com/) website. It is from a Wall Street Journal article (a paid registration required) by Scot J. Paltrow. It doesn't seem to be getting a lot of play in the media.

Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

...

The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.

Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.

That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.

Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. "We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw," and "nothing was missing," he said.

So, it does look like the documents that are missing are copies. Not a ringing endorsement of Berger's sloppy handling of classified materials, but hardly the conspiracy to withhold information that pious GOP talking heads were alleging. Looks like this story is dead, but it accomplished the diversion its leakers wanted.

2jaded2care

Jul 30, 2004, 02:28 PM

Sayhey

Jul 30, 2004, 02:56 PM

Yeah, I heard on the radio this AM that Berger was cleared of withholding info from the commission, and no originals were missing, but the issue of removing classified materials from the National Archives was still pending...

Glad to hear this may have just been "sloppiness". Though maybe next time they shouldn't let him wear a jacket or pants into the archives... :rolleyes:

It sounds like the Saxby Chambliss story of stuffing documents in his pants and socks was made up for greater effect. He likely put papers he shouldn't have in his portfolio and carried them out. What I'm not sure of, and I don't think anyone has made this clear, is whether he took them out by mistake or out of a overzealous attempt to be prepared for his testimony. Either way he made a serious mistake.