Lots of reaction today to the not-so-surprising guilty plea of Sandy Berger to charges of intentionally removing and destroying documents from the National Archive. I say "not-so-surprising" because there never was a rational explanation given for his actions that didn't involve criminal intent. Oh, there were plenty of irrational (and illogical) explanations out there, mostly by friends of Berger or those partisans who believe that all Democrats are saintly creations that would never put a foot wrong, but they always seemed half-hearted to me.
From the Washington Post:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."
It is hard to be more unequivocal than that.
From around the blogs:
The Moderate Voice-
1. Berger needs to be condemned by Democrats and independents who must demand the same Zero Tolerance towards him that they are insisting be applied towards DeLay (who is not accused of a crime as serious as Berger's at this point, by the way). And GOPers who are dumping on Berger must demand laws should be applied to DeLay (we already know DeLay's answer: see below) just as they are to Berger.
2. Berger should never EVER be allowed to be a part in any way, shape or form of ANY future administration.
3. Historians should and will most assuredly take note of this. What more confirmation is necessary that Berger & Co did not quite do all that in retrospect they should have done on terrorism?
TMV is being a bit more sanguine than I can be. I don't think the excuse making for Berger will stop even now. Democrats can always just say "Well, Republicans are worse and evil and stuff!" And all the little kool-aid drinkers will smile and nod their heads in unison.
Power Line-
It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day. The idea that this was "an honest mistake," as Berger now claims, is ridiculous. Obviously, he was trying to destroy documents that showed the negligence of the Clinton administration--of which he was a key member--in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Key documents relating to our government's inadequate reaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism prior to Sept. 11 are now gone forever, successfully purged from the historical record by one of Bill Clinton's most loyal servants. This plea bargain appears, on its face, to be a disgrace. If anyone can think of a reason why this is not correct, please let us know.
The usual braying for blood from Power Line. I'm not saying they don't have a point (after all, Berger was stealing from all of us), but this gives the Republicans all the political capital they were ever going to get from the matter. Do you really need the man's carcass?
Outside The Beltway-
Rather clearly, this was an attempt to cover something up. What, exactly, I haven't the foggiest. Previous to this incident, Berger had, so far as I was aware (and I follow national security policy rather closely) an impeccable reputation for integrity. The loss of that will surely hurt more than the $10,000 fine.
American Future-
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
If Berger had returned the documents after doing his homework, perhaps a slap on the wrist would suffice. But he destroyed them instead. Something very embarassing to the Clinton Administration must have been in them. It's a cover-up -- a sloppy one, but a cover-up nonetheless. At a minimum, Richard Clarke should be called upon to testify under oath to the appropriate Congressional Committee.
Will the MSM get up-in-arms about this? Don't bet on it. We can only hope that Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review decide to dig, and dig deep. Among the questions that need to be answered is whether Berger acted on his own intiative or was encouraged by others.
I understand the outrage, but I just don't think this can lead to anywhere but semi-founded speculation at best. The only way it could be otherwise is if there exists duplicates of the items Berger destroyed. Otherwise we shall have to wait until Berger's on his deathbed. Sad. True.
The Daily Kos-
[The sound of crickets]
Actually the DK is taking (to this point, 11:30 AM central time) the famous Ravenous Bug Blatter Beast of Traal approach to this issue, pretending that if they can't see it than it can't see them. Well, why not? It has worked for them so well in the past.
4 comments:
A clarification, but not a defense of Berger, who,as a Democrat, I hope gets the maximum sentence, and even if he does, is still getting off lightly. In some ways he should be made an example of, especially since other reports of people walking away with documents from the National Archives and trying to sell them on E-bay.
I agree with your take on the need for Democrats to be more critical of Berger, though I think he deserves somewhat harsher punishment than you recommend.
But Powerline and American future distort the truth, especially it "being indisputable that these were original documents" and the contents are lost to history. Nor are "they" "gone forever" ("they" in quotation marks to note the fact it was only one document-a fact that does not exonerate Berger in any way):
From the Post article you cite:
"The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an "after-action review" prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration's actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration's awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
Archives officials have said previously that Berger had copies only, and that no original documents were lost. It remains unclear whether Berger knew that, or why he destroyed three versions of a document but left two other versions intact. Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch."
Unless the "slight variations" hid some damaging information, which seems unlikely, the document prepared by Clarke was not lost, was available to the 9/11 commission, and there is no need for Clarke to testify about what was in the document as American Future breathlessly exhorts.
And while I agree with some of Moderate Voice's reaction, I hope to God he is not a historian, because if he thinks that Berger walking off with copies of one document is evidence of anything relating to the Clinton administration handling of terrorism, he is being ridiculous. He writes "What more confirmation is necessary that Berger & Co did not quite do all that in retrospect they should have done on terrorism?" Gee, I think good historians would need a lot more confirmation. A good historian would barely consider this incident worthy of a footnote in the book on Clinton and terrorism.
I don't read a lot of blogs because misinformation and hyperbole like this occurs on a regular basis. Well, just like the MSM, I guess. So, even though I bitch at you about some of your postings, they are normally a helluva lot more thought out and nuanced than most.
Walt
I've think they still have a point in that these were "working documents" that may have contained marginalia that would now be forever lost. In other words they were not "archival" copies, made after the fact, but copies that were in circulation for government use at the time.
My main point is that we can never know what marginalia (if any) existed on the destroyed items. In lieu of this all we are left with is speculation and perception. It does look terrible.
At least Berger will be punished. I'll agree with you that maybe he should have recieved a harder slap on the wrist.
Point taken about the marginalia, and I agree it does look terrible, but I think you give them way too much credit if you think they are arguing about the marginalia that was lost. Even if they were, I still would argue that their overblown rhetoric just doesn't hold- for instance, the marginalia argument doesn't make Moderate Voice's argument about historians judging the Clinton adminsitration any more valid. And they clearly distort the truth- see American Future's call for Richard Clarke to testify under oath (I think it may be a stretch to think that Clarke saw the marginalia, and if he did, could recall it)-because the implication is clearly that the original document was destroyed and Clarke is needed to provide info about the document; and see Powerline's suggestion that there were multiple documents, not marked-up versions of the same document, and that is was the original document that was taken. They clearly want to suggest that Berger hid the smoking gun, and that what's missing is monumentally important. I would submit that is extremely doubtful.
Certainly, whatever marginalia that existed could be very embarrassing for the Clinton administration (and more probably, to Sandy Berger himself), and the fact that it was destroyed is reason for a fair degree of suspicion. And reason for a stiffer penalty. But to suggest, as these bloggers (not you) do, that this was a cover-up of historical proportions and that their destruction prevented the 9/11 commission from getting to the truth, and by their rhetoric, the loss of these documents was an incalculable blow to national security, is just ridiculous.
Walt
P.S. I was just thinking that, if it didn't exist already, there would be a great (and possibly quite funny) history or political science book in examining the importance of marginalia in policy-making surrounding important events, like war planning, developing the Marshall Plan, etc. Wouldn't it be great to find out that some key decision was based on a note scribbled in a planning document or speech? ("Mr. President, change "day that will live with my Aunt Gertrude forever" to "day that will live in infamy.") I imagine that historians come across these on a regular basis, but it'd be nice to see sort of a compilation of them.
("Mr. President, change "day that will live with my Aunt Gertrude forever" to "day that will live in infamy.")
This reminds me of the great Bob Newhart bit, "How many times do I have to tell you Abe? On the back of envelopes. Which reminds me, how are the envelopes holding out? What? You could use another box?"
Post a Comment