QandO
Questions and Observations| « Oh wonderful! | Main | Where's the NAACP when you need them? » |
|
July 20, 2004 The secret of Sandy Berger's Pants With the deepest sorrow, John Kerry's campaign is pushing Sandy Berger overboard. Of course, not all Democrats are so intolerant. Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein, however, said Kerry should "absolutely not" drop Berger from his team. Uh huh. The availability of copies, in case you didn't know, has very little to do with the reason that documents are classified. It's usually the content of the document. I guess this needs explaining, because, if Mr. Goodstein is any example, some people are a bit unclear on the whole classification thing. The fact that Kerry has pulled the plug on Berger's participation in the campaign indicates to me that there's some worry about the seriousness of this. You see, here's the deal. There are rules when dealing with classified documents. In general, you cannot remove classified documents from their facility at all. Berger says he "Inadvertantly" put them in his "portfolio" (briefcase). A likely story. And one that's made less likely by him and his lawyer admitting that Berger smuggled out notes in his pants jackets and...socks. Socks, for cripe's sake. The rule is that any notes you take on classified materials has to be reviewed, to ensure you haven't copied down classified info. After it's reviewed, your unclassified notes are returned to you. Berger evidently didn't want to go through all that, so apparently he's admitting to intentionally smuggling those notes out of the archives. Then he expects me to believe that his taking of actual documents was inadvertent? Sure, Sandy. Whatever you say. |
Dale,
One thing to realize is that Berger is/was an "informal" adviser. He had no official standing within the campaign. Accordingly, there is nothing from which he can be dismissed or resign.
Look for him to retain contact with Kerry's campaign on the QT; his services are too valuable to ashcan.
Posted by: D at July 20, 2004 05:37 PM
I think you're being a little too literal, there, D.
Posted by: Dale Franks at July 20, 2004 05:44 PM
Fact:
Berger knowingly stole our highest secrets.
WHY?
What could possibly be worth such a crime?
What would be MORE damaging than being caught?
ANYONE who believes that Berger acted INADVERTANTLY (and selected and stole and then discarded some of the documents randomly)is a fool.
This is why we must ask "WHY?" - why motive is CENTRAL to solving this crime.
FURTHERMORE: there is and can be NO GOOD/POSITIVE REASON for doing what he did; it can IN NO WAY be claimed that he removed documents for the nation's benefit - in order to preserve them, for instance; after all, they were taken from the National Archives.
HAS ANYONE OUT THERE (WHO'S BEEN TO COLLEGE) EVER INADVERTANTLY TAKEN A BOOK (OR ARTICLE)OUT OF THE RESERVE-READING-ROOM BY STUFFING IT IN ONE'S PANTS, AND JACKET?!?!?!?!?
That doesn't/can't happen accidentally/incidentally.
One must DECIDE to do it.
It is PREMEDITATED.
Cogent. Elective.
And, the decision is very GRAVE, and very RISKY.
The NEED MUST BE GREATER THAN THE RISK FOR ANY SANE MAN TO DO IT.
LOGICALLY, it could be:
(1) that Berger was covering for Clinton - who may have had chances to get Binladen and decided not to - or that,
(2) Berger was covering for himself: perhaps Clinton was not even given the chance to get Binladen because Berger short-circuited suggestions from lower-downs.
Or both 1 & 2.
BOTTOM-LINE: Berger stole and destroyed national secrets and secret documents relating to our national security - documents which were rated at our highest "secret" classification level ("CODE-WORD"). He did this in a time of war, and DURING an investigation into the security lapses which might have contributed to our being vulnerable to the worst act of terror ever perpetrated on the USA.
I feel that Berger is guilty of treason.
Posted by: dan at July 20, 2004 06:41 PM
PLUS: Berger did it on FIVE (5) separate visits to the National Archives. Inadvertant every time?
IMPOSSIBLE! What do they take us for!?!?!?
WHY HASN'T HE BEEN INDICTED!?!?!?!?!?
Posted by: dan at July 20, 2004 06:44 PM
Did other Clinton Administration people who testified also visit the National Archives to refresh their memories, and did they take stuff, too?!?!?!?!
Posted by: dan at July 20, 2004 06:46 PM
I feel that Berger is guilty of treason.
Fortunately, the Constitution defines treason differently:
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Posted by: Dale Franks at July 20, 2004 06:56 PM
Great comment from Clinton regarding the investigation regarding unauthorized removal of classified documents: "We were all laughing about it"
Yup. Thats the party you want fighting the war on terror.
Posted by: shark at July 20, 2004 08:50 PM
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort
He may be guilty of treason Dale. Unresolved points:
1) What did those documents contain?
2) Why were they taken (on someone's behalf? Who's?)
3) Who had access to these documents from Mr. Berger?
I do doubt it is treason, but until these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I don't see why he deserves the benefit of any doubt from anyone.
Posted by: shark at July 20, 2004 08:55 PM
Way back when - Bush said he didn't support an independent 911 commission because all it would be was a partisan political football and wouldn't be used to actually help with NS. And they call this guy dumb. Now whatever Berger took and whatever his affiliation with Kerry this just proves that there is nothing this commission has done beyond proving GWB was right in the first place. I agree that probably what he took isn't the most sensitive info for NS but I'm sure it was politically sensitive which was what Bush warned about in the first place.
Posted by: Jack Tanner at July 21, 2004 07:57 AM
Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a cash advance.
Posted by: cash advance at November 26, 2004 12:35 AM
Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a cash advance.
Posted by: cash advance at November 26, 2004 09:15 PM