The Berger Affair
Friday, July 23, 2004; Page A28

IT’S STILL NOT clear why former national security adviser Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger improperly removed secret documents from the National Archives last year. Mr. Berger, who was reviewing Clinton administration papers in connection with their release to the Sept. 11 commission, says he carried off several drafts of a January 2000 White House counterterrorism memo by mistake. But archives employees told The Post he took documents on more than one occasion, prompting them to code material they gave him during an October 2003 visit. When called about the disappearance of some of those papers, Mr. Berger acknowledged that he also slipped out with some 50 pages of notes he had failed to clear with archives personnel, as required by law.

Ah, so he “improperly removed” documents. That’s a great euphemism for stealing. I’m gonna tell all the guys in Rikers who stole something that they should use that on their resume; “I didn’t steal it, I improperly removed it.” I also notice that the Washington Post makes sure to get in the “by mistake” part, as if that matters. In reality, “by mistake” may be grounds for a lighter sentence, but this is a serious national security breach and needs to be punished accordingly.

Because the classified memos he took apparently covered weaknesses in the Clinton administration’s defense against domestic terrorist attacks, some have speculated that the former NSC chief, until this week a principal foreign policy adviser to presumptive Democratic nominee John F. Kerry, may have been trying to save himself or the previous Democratic administration from embarrassment — although the Sept. 11 commission did review the memo. Maybe he was simply contemptuous of the idea that he should have access to a report he commissioned only in an archives reading room and under the scrutiny of its personnel. Whether it was a mistake or not, Mr. Berger’s conduct, the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI, was reprehensible, and he was right to resign as a Kerry adviser.

Agreed. But of course, the Washington Post can’t leave it at that…

Still, it’s hard not to be repulsed by the reaction to the affair by President Bush’s campaign spokesmen and Republicans in Congress. They have suggested, without foundation, that Mr. Berger took the papers to benefit Mr. Kerry, who says that he knew nothing of the matter; House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has spoken, with gross hyperbole, of a “national security crisis.” Having squelched congressional examination of a genuine national security scandal — the involvement of U.S. military commanders in grave violations of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq — House leaders, including Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), have rushed to announce hearings on the Berger affair. As happened so often during the Clinton administration, they are treating a real but apparently limited case of misconduct as an opportunity to misuse congressional oversight powers to wage partisan warfare.

They have suggested without foundation? It’s amazing really, that the Washington Post is suddenly worried about foundation. Lord Byron reviews the intelligence of the British government and says that the President’s claims about Iraq trying to buy yellow cake uranium were properly based on British Intelligence as he stated in his speech. Joe Wilson, who wanted Karl Rove “Frog Marched” out of the White House has been seriously discredited in a series of recent reports. The Senate has investigated the intelligence at the time and, while finding failures in the accuracy of the information, has also found that the President acted on the information he had. Yet I have not seen one editorial in the Washington Post about foundation. Instead of criticizing Wilson, the story is left to hang out there as if the reports of 6 months ago are still true.

As for calling the theft of these documents “gross hyperbole,” I would like to know what the Post would define a National Security Advisor who should know better stealing documents from the National Archives that are classified and then being careless enough with them to destroy or lose them. This is not on the level of Abu Ghraib, which is not a national security crisis by any stretch of the imagination. As for rushing to hearings, what misuse of Congressional oversight is it? It’s Congress’ job to oversee intelligence. It’s Congress’ job to protect the government and its constituents. If you want to see a gross example of overreacting, consider that Abu Ghraib was limited to one unit in Iraq, and a small number of soldiers within that unit. Yet everyone all the way up to the top of the chain was a hot commodity for testimony including Donald Rumsfeld, even though the investigations by the Defense Department were already under way and the soldiers involved had already been court marshalled, tried, convicted, and punished. No Washington Post editorials on that one either.

It’s worth noting that news of the months-old investigation of Mr. Berger just happened to leak on the week before the Democratic convention, and two days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission’s report — which covers serious lapses by President Bush as well as President Bill Clinton. Officials at the Bush White House had been briefed on the Berger probe. Could that be a coincidence?

(c) 2004 The Washington Post Company

Why is it worth noting? Contrary to the Post’s assertion that the report is damaging to either President, Tom Keane and Lee Hamilton specifically and categorically said it is not. The President had this report in his hands weeks ago and knew that, and yet he decided to head off a report that lays no criticism at his doorstep? What exactly does it divert from? And, without foundation, the leak of the probe has been attributed to the Republican party.

Let’s assume Kerry knew about the probe and didn’t want to get caught with Berger on staff while a probe was going on. What would be his best course of action? Yes, he should leak the probe so Berger can resign and he’d be rid of him and can then blame the issue on someone else.

Don’t believe it? Why not? The post was floating theories that had no foundation, why can’t I?

The idea that the President would allow a leak of a probe in order to head off a report that does no harm to him is silly. It’s also a talking point for Tom Daschle and all the other Democrats in Congress. Interesting how the Post has no problems making baseless accusations and repeating Democrat talking points all in the name of fairness and objectivity.

Source: The Washington Post via Spoons