Scandal was the word most used yesterday to describe news that Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor to former President Clinton, and a formal policy advisor to John Kerry, removed and destroyed classified materials from a secure government reading room while preparing to testify before the 9/11 Commission. You wouldn’t have guessed as much from reading the New York Times yesterday morrning, but there are many reasons to suspect that Berger's behavior was anything but inadvertant.
Yesterday morning, before the scandal had gained momentum, the Times quoted Berger as saying, "… I inadvertently took a few documents from the archives." The Times wrote, “Mr. Berger removed at least two versions of a memorandum assessing how the government handled intelligence and security issues before the millennium celebrations in 1999, his lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, said. He also removed notes he took about classified documents…”
I read this article and extended the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Berger. I suspect that most readers concluded as I did, that Berger went to the library, did some research and accidentally tucked confidential library materials in to his papers as he was leaving. A simple mistake… or so I thought. Times readers may not have known that while they absorbed the (purposely?) truncated and incomplete version of the story that appeared online yesterday, other media, notably the Blogsphere, were posting important details about what clearly is a scandal.
InstaPundit, for example, referenced an Associated Press report that Berger “inadvertently” took documents on more than one occasion: “… [National] Archives staff first raised concerns with Berger during an Oct. 2 review of documents that at least one copy of the post-millennium report he had reviewed earlier was missing. Berger was given a second copy that day… Officials familiar with the investigation said Archive staff specially marked the documents and when the new copy and others disappeared, Archive officials called Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey to raise concerns.”
VodkaPundit also referenced an Associated Press report that Berger removed notes on the classified documents from the secured environment by tucking them into his clothing: “Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants.”
This morning the Times reported, albeit reluctantly, that there may be more to the story than can be explained as “inadvertent” behavior. It spent the better part of the first page of the article portraying Berger as a victim of Republican opportunism. It wrote that Republicans accused [Berger] … of stashing the material in his clothing” and noted that Berger’s attorney had characterized this accusation as ““ridiculous” and politically inspired.” Not until the second page, and well toward the end of the article did the Times mention that Berger, “… put in his jacket and pants pockets handwritten notes that he had made during his review of the documents.”
How can the Times justify reporting a sanitized version of the story yesterday when troubling details were readily available from news bureaus and on the Internet? What, if not bias, explains the Times obvious attempt today to paper over the sinister details of an emerging scandal that hurts the Democrat party’s chances in the November elections. Imagine if Condaleeza Rice was discovered to have removed classified materials from a secure government reading room. Would the Times pull punches?
I am unable to explain why Berger would purposely steal and destroy classified documents. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the details of the story demand otherwise.
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his taking of classified documents from a secure reading room, not once but twice.
- The documents that Berger removed would seem to include all of the existing copies (in draft or final version) of a particular report.
- Berger characterized as "inadvertant" his destruction of certain of those classified documents.
- Berger knowingly snuck his notes about those classified documents out of the secure reading room in his pant and jacket pockets.
- Berger characterized as voluntary, his return of the documents, but the National Archives indicates that the documents were missed, that a trap was set, and that he was subsequently caught.
- The FBI is investigating the matter and has searched Berger's house.
A pattern emerges from these facts- whether or not the Times likes it- the pattern has nothing to do with inadvertant behavior
Posted by publius at July 21, 2004 01:49 PMThe press (and the education system) in the western world stacks the political deck right now in favour of the left. If we want to change that, small-c conservatives need to be willing to fund alternative sources of information.
Until we're willing to put our money where our mouth is, it's just whining.
Publius is doing his bit.
Posted by: Damian at July 22, 2004 03:06 PMPutting the breath taking breach of security aside, isn't it just amazing that Clinton knew of the investigation, Berger's spokes people and spinners are Clintonites and yet John Kerry says he didn't know about the investigation! If its true Kerry is being lead around by the nose and kept in the dark by his own advisor. If its not true its terrible judgment on Kerry's part. Also, where is Kerry's outrage that his close advisor, Berger, did not let him know this?
This story should not go away despite MSM(main stream media's) fervent wish.
The more you read about the story the more you have to suspect that Berger willfully stole and destroyed classified materials. The left wing and the MSM direct the focus toward who leaked the story instead of what materials were destroyed. Not a surprise, but one does grow tired of their claim to be objective.
Posted by: Publius at July 22, 2004 10:21 PM