Former Nat. Security Advisor Under Investigation

[Guest Cerebus]

Some things defy explination. The incredibly lax reaction to this is one of them.

 

Berger: Incident Was 'Honest Mistake' 

 

By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger says he regrets the way he handled classified terrorism documents, calling the whole thing "an honest mistake." Republicans say the matter raises questions about whether the former Clinton administration official sought to hide embarrassing materials. 

 

"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?" House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said. "Mr. Berger has a lot of explaining to do."

 

The Justice Department (news - web sites) is investigating whether Berger committed a crime by removing from the National Archives copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents. Berger was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

 

When news of the investigation surfaced, Berger on Tuesday quit as an informal adviser to John Kerry (news - web sites)'s presidential campaign to limit the political fallout.

 

Kerry said later, "Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to this campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly."

 

Berger told reporters he was not guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

 

"Last year, when I was in the Archives reviewing documents, I made an honest mistake. It's one that I deeply regret," Berger said. "I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely. Everything that I have done all along in this process has been for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 commission, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply, absolutely wrong."

 

Many Democrats, including former President Clinton (news - web sites) himself, suggested that politics were behind disclosure of the probe only days before Thursday's scheduled release of the Sept. 11 commission report. That report is expected to be highly critical of the government's response to the growing al-Qaida threat, a potential blow to President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign.

 

"It's interesting timing," Clinton said at a Denver autograph session for his book, "My Life." Berger served as national security adviser for all of Clinton's second term.

 

Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, said the former Clinton adviser knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. He returned most of the documents, but some still are missing.

 

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters the case was about theft and questioned a statement by Berger issued Monday attributing the removal of the documents and notes to sloppiness.

 

"I think it's gravely, gravely serious what he did, if he did it. It could be a national security crisis," DeLay said.

 

Asked to comment on that Wednesday, Breuer said he was "very disappointed with this reaction."

 

"This matter is a year old," he said on NBC's "Today" show.

 

"Never once, in all my discussions with the Justice Department has there been any assertion like that," Breuer said. "It was an advertent mistake ... All I can tell you is that when this matter started a year ago, I said to the Department of Justice (news - web sites) that we were going to deal with this in good faith, that we wouldn't go to the press and that we wouldn't make this political .... and then suddenly, days before the 9/11 commission report comes out, this is leaked."

 

The documents involved have been a key point of contention between the Clinton and Bush administrations on the question of who responded more forcefully to the threat of al-Qaida terrorism. Written by former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke, they discuss the 1999 plot to attack U.S. millennium celebrations and offer more than two dozen recommendations for improving the response to Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida network.

 

In his April 13 testimony to the Sept. 11 commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said the review "warns the prior administration of a substantial al-Qaida network" in the United States. Ashcroft said it also recommends such things as using tougher visa and border controls and prosecutions of immigration violations and minor criminal charges to disrupt terror cells.

 

"These are the same aggressive, often-criticized law enforcement tactics that we have unleashed for 31 months to stop another al-Qaida attack," Ashcroft told the panel. He added that he never saw the documents before the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

Berger said in his March 23 testimony to the commission that Clinton submitted a $300 million supplemental budget to Congress to pay for implementing many of the documents' recommendations. Berger acknowledged, however, that not all of them were accomplished.

 

In his statement Monday, Berger said that every Clinton administration document requested by the Sept. 11 commission was provided to the panel. Berger also said he returned some classified documents and all his handwritten notes when he was asked about them, except for two or three copies of the millennium report that may have been thrown away.

 

Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, said the Berger investigation will have no bearing on the panel's report.

 

Bush admin. leaked an ongoing investigation. Shocked am I.

 

By the way, the criminal penalties for mishandling or unauthorized disclosure of classified documents goes up to a $50,000 fine and 10 years in prison. If I had ever did something like this, I would not only lose my job, but I’d almost certainly go to prison. Berger, on the other hand, simply shrugs it off and attributes it to “sloppiness.” Fucking unbelivable.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

It's another example of just complete carelessness.

 

Don't we long for the days in which our only security failures were because of really good enemy spies and not bungling ineptitude. We've gotten soft n fat.

[Vyce 0]

When news of the investigation surfaced, Berger on Tuesday quit as an informal adviser to John Kerry (news - web sites)'s presidential campaign to limit the political fallout.

 

Kerry said later, "Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to this campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly."

 

Why aren’t more people making something out of the fact that this guy is an advisor to Kerry?

 

And that line by Kerry sums up the party line that every Democrat was saying yesterday. Just about every Democrat interviewed yesterday about this story said something along the lines of “Sandy Berger has served this country well.” Oh, then, I’ll totally forgive him for breaking the law here and possibly committing a national security violation.

 

Politicians need to attack this thing like pitbulls. I want to know what the content of those documents was, because it’s going to be very interesting if we find out that they prove that Clinton wasn’t doing as much about terrorism as he’s claimed he’s done.

 

And the criticism about this being leaked to the media gripes me. Does that matter? Berger did something incredibly stupid, illegal, and possibly in violation of national security, quite possibly to protect the previous administration from damaging information being disclosed, and we’re supposed to ignore all of that or take it with a grain of salt because it’s possible that word of this investigation was leaked by the Republicans? Fuck that.

[Guest SideFXs]

Another one bites-the-dust, serving the whims of Bill Clinton

[Dangerous A 0]

I, too would like to know what the content of the documents is and why is Sandy Berger not in handcuffs right now? His act should warrant at least an arrest. Since he's Sandy Berger, he gets a free pass.

[NoCalMike 0]

the only thing is, if the documents were/are classified, how much info about them could actually be given to the public? Politicians in general always get a free pass with these type of things unless there can be a direct link between their action and something bad happening.

 

The right is thus far claiming the docs somehow prove that the Clinton's administration did not treat Osama/Taliban/Al Qaeda as the #1 threat. Much of what the left is complaing about the current adminstration.

[Dangerous A 0]

Fuck what the right says is on the document. I want consequences for this blatant breach of National Security. Even if it doesn't lead to something bad happening, it sets a dangerous precedent that protocol can be broken in the name of "sloppiness" because if and when the right pull off the same stunt, the same excuse will be used and it will be ok. It's not ok, especially when dealing with National Security.

[NoCalMike 0]

Fuck what the right says is on the document. I want consequences for this blatant breach of National Security. Even if it doesn't lead to something bad happening, it sets a dangerous precedent that protocol can be broken in the name of "sloppiness" because if and when the right pull off the same stunt, the same excuse will be used and it will be ok. It's not ok, especially when dealing with National Security.

well yeah, it isn't ok if in fact all the accusations prove to be true. I didn't mean to make it sound like I personally thought it was ok because he was a politician, I just meant to say, the crime he is being accused of is probably something that takes place more commonly then we would like to think. Also interesting is that this story is 7 months old, the 9/11 comission knew about it, already questioned him on it, yet somehow it gets all this attention put BACK onto it, right as the 9/11 comission is about to come to their conclusion.......

 

If he is infact found guilty, then throw the freaking book at him, however as of right now he is not "guilty" of anything yet, he is just under investigation.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I agree with NoCalMike, and would also like to point out that the documents he took were copies and the originals are still in the Archives, so the right trying to pin stuff back to Clinton doesn't seem to hold water to me.

[Dangerous A 0]

True, the timing of this story coming out RIGHT NOW with the 9/11 report coming out tommorrow is very peculiar. I really don't like how it has been politicized. I am more concerned with the breach of security part of it. I will also conceed that this type of "sloppiness" has occurred with others and to that I say it is far from ok.

 

This all bothers me.

[Vyce 0]

the only thing is, if the documents were/are classified, how much info about them could actually be given to the public? Politicians in general always get a free pass with these type of things unless there can be a direct link between their action and something bad happening.

 

The right is thus far claiming the docs somehow prove that the Clinton's administration did not treat Osama/Taliban/Al Qaeda as the #1 threat. Much of what the left is complaing about the current adminstration.

I don't expect the exactly read the documents on the evening news, but they CAN be general about it. For example, if these documents discuss the Clinton administration's actions towards terrorism, they can tell us in very general terms about that without totally declassifying the information found within.

 

Also interesting is that this story is 7 months old, the 9/11 comission knew about it, already questioned him on it, yet somehow it gets all this attention put BACK onto it, right as the 9/11 comission is about to come to their conclusion.......

 

You know what, though? I wouldn't blame a single soul for this story coming out right now - I'd blame them for not coming out with the story weeks / months ago when it apparently became evident he was doing this shit. It looks like the guy broke national security - don't fucking keep quiet on that.

[NoCalMike 0]

True, the timing of this story coming out RIGHT NOW with the 9/11 report coming out tommorrow is very peculiar. I really don't like how it has been politicized.

Regarding this, Hannity had his rage-o-meter running off the charts last night, as he had Ann Coulter on as a guest, which you could imagine, lead to Colmes basically becoming a virtual statue for 60mins........all is good in tv land.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

He returned most of the documents, but some still are missing.

Here's another example of media bias.

[NoCalMike 0]

the only thing is, if the documents were/are classified, how much info about them could actually be given to the public?  Politicians in general always get a free pass with these type of things unless there can be a direct link between their action and something bad happening.

 

The right is thus far claiming the docs somehow prove that the Clinton's administration did not treat Osama/Taliban/Al Qaeda as the #1 threat.  Much of what the left is complaing about the current adminstration.

I don't expect the exactly read the documents on the evening news, but they CAN be general about it. For example, if these documents discuss the Clinton administration's actions towards terrorism, they can tell us in very general terms about that without totally declassifying the information found within.

 

Well the only problem with this is, if the documents are given some title by the media for what the documents are generally about such as, "Clinton on Terrorism" then everyone will obviously take the lowest common denominator and/or devils advocate position and say, "see Berger was covering up Clinton's crap job on terrorism AHHHHHHHHHHHH" and they will just go with that nonstop, even though they have no idea of what is in the documents.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Center for American Progress sums this up pretty well.

[Guest MikeSC]

Center for American Progress sums this up pretty well.

Man, if Rice did this, she'd be lynched by now.

-=Mike

..."It doesn't matter. It happened MONTHS ago."

"Well, so did Abu Gharib"

"But..."

[NoCalMike 0]

Center for American Progress sums this up pretty well.

Man, if Rice did this, she'd be lynched by now.

-=Mike

..."It doesn't matter. It happened MONTHS ago."

"Well, so did Abu Gharib"

"But..."

WTF are you talking about? The worst Rice has been accused of is lying, which by all accounts is a politicians job in a way. I hardly call Katie Couric or Chris Matthews lobbing her a softball question being one step from getting lynched. If she had done it, the same thing that is happening to Berger would happen to Rice, one side would be up in arms, while the other side would basically claim it is all ado about nothing, same shirt, different day.

[Guest MikeSC]

Center for American Progress sums this up pretty well.

Man, if Rice did this, she'd be lynched by now.

-=Mike

..."It doesn't matter. It happened MONTHS ago."

"Well, so did Abu Gharib"

"But..."

WTF are you talking about? The worst Rice has been accused of is lying, which by all accounts is a politicians job in a way. I hardly call Katie Couric or Chris Matthews lobbing her a softball question being one step from getting lynched. If she had done it, the same thing that is happening to Berger would happen to Rice, one side would be up in arms, while the other side would basically claim it is all ado about nothing, same shirt, different day.

If Rice "accidentally" stuffed confidential documents in her pants and socks --- I doubt the left would be all that forgiving.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Center for American Progress sums this up pretty well.

Man, if Rice did this, she'd be lynched by now.

-=Mike

..."It doesn't matter. It happened MONTHS ago."

"Well, so did Abu Gharib"

"But..."

WTF are you talking about? The worst Rice has been accused of is lying, which by all accounts is a politicians job in a way. I hardly call Katie Couric or Chris Matthews lobbing her a softball question being one step from getting lynched. If she had done it, the same thing that is happening to Berger would happen to Rice, one side would be up in arms, while the other side would basically claim it is all ado about nothing, same shirt, different day.

If Rice "accidentally" stuffed confidential documents in her pants and socks --- I doubt the left would be all that forgiving.

-=Mike

I never said the Left would be forgiving. Re-read my post, or maybe I should if I f'd up my wording, but what I said was that if it had been Rice accused, then it be basically the left up in arms, and the right claiming much ado about nothing....repeat: same shit different day. We have dirty politicians in office, they stink to high heaven, but these are the people that are getting voted in and appointed by their buddies; same shit, different day. This whole supposed "coverup" is most likely a bigger issue then just Bush & Clinton and Burger etc.....but everytime someone is accused or acting suspicious, it is the same debate EVERYTIME, one side is up in arms, and one side wants to sweep it under the rug. Until people are willing to start the process of rooting all of them out, then this is what we will continue to get.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And likewise, the right isn't being very forgiving, either.

 

And the "pants and socks" bullshit was invented by Saxby Chambliss. Stop buying into sensationalism.

[NoCalMike 0]

And likewise, the right isn't being very forgiving, either.

 

And the "pants and socks" bullshit was invented by Saxby Chambliss. Stop buying into sensationalism.

...but but but.....Ann Coulter said it was true....

[Guest Cerebus]

Fuck the left and fuck the right.

 

If I had done this when I was at the DIA I would be strung up by my balls while they were investigating it. So why isn't Berger being treated the same way when he was dealing with documents at the VERY TOP of the national security chain of command? This is jumping a little ahead, but if Berger is found to have STOLEN classified documents he needs to have the book thrown at him. Left, Right, or Backwards, if a former National Security Advisor can't be held responsible for following classification laws, then our entire classification system is in much MUCH worse shape than I thought.

[Dangerous A 0]

Fuck the left and fuck the right.

 

If I had done this when I was at the DIA I would be strung up by my balls while they were investigating it. So why isn't Berger being treated the same way when he was dealing with documents at the VERY TOP of the national security chain of command? This is jumping a little ahead, but if Berger is found to have STOLEN classified documents he needs to have the book thrown at him. Left, Right, or Backwards, if a former National Security Advisor can't be held responsible for following classification laws, then our entire classification system is in much MUCH worse shape than I thought.

[Jim Rome Show] Rack him! [/Jim Rome Show]

[NoCalMike 0]

Fuck the left and fuck the right.

 

If I had done this when I was at the DIA I would be strung up by my balls while they were investigating it. So why isn't Berger being treated the same way when he was dealing with documents at the VERY TOP of the national security chain of command? This is jumping a little ahead, but if Berger is found to have STOLEN classified documents he needs to have the book thrown at him. Left, Right, or Backwards, if a former National Security Advisor can't be held responsible for following classification laws, then our entire classification system is in much MUCH worse shape than I thought.

Agreed.

[Vyce 0]

Center for American Progress sums this up pretty well.

Man, if Rice did this, she'd be lynched by now.

-=Mike

..."It doesn't matter. It happened MONTHS ago."

"Well, so did Abu Gharib"

"But..."

Here's the thing, Mike - as much as the Bush admin. has been accused of "stonewalling" the 9/11 investigations, I don't think there's one piece of proof that they've actually hidden information from the commission.

 

But here we have one of the previous administration's boys literally stuffing paper into his fucking undies to make sure no one else sees it.

 

But according to the Center for American Progress, we shouldn't really concern ourselves with his actions.

 

[bTW - I'm kind of surprised you didn't talk about the partisan nature of that link, but then again, I don't suppose it needed saying.]

 

So why isn't Berger being treated the same way when he was dealing with documents at the VERY TOP of the national security chain of command?

 

Because he's served this country ably for many years. All the Democrats, and even John F. Kerry, tell me so. So shouldn't we cut the guy some slack for violating national security?

[Dr. Tom 0]

Fuck the left and fuck the right.

 

If I had done this when I was at the DIA I would be strung up by my balls while they were investigating it.

You and me both. If I did something like this now, I'd probably get shot and have a quick "trial" while I bled out. Ignore political affiliations: the man STOLE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. Considering the position he had, he should bloody well know better than to do something so dangerous and foolish. How long he served as a good employee doesn't matter when national security could potentially be at stake.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

But here we have one of the previous administration's boys literally stuffing paper into his fucking undies to make sure no one else sees it.

 

Yeah, because you're not exaggerating there at all.

[Guest MikeSC]

You know Instapundit asked a question --- why is there NO outrage from the Kerry campaign?

 

Going with what he has said, Kerry had NO idea Berger was under investigation. Berger DID know, as have several others. In real easy terms, Berger stabbed him in the back by, apparently, not telling him he was under investigation.

 

And, yet, not a single "How could he do that to our guy?" comments from any anonymous sources in the Kerry campaign.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He resigned from his post already, that's why.

 

Nothing he did will hurt Kerry in the least.

[Guest MikeSC]

He resigned from his post already, that's why.

 

Nothing he did will hurt Kerry in the least.

Regardless --- not a single "How could he have done this?" comment.

 

Then again, I haven't heard any about Joe Wilson, and lord knows he's been quite exposed.

-=Mike