Former National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger either can't find his socks or the classified documents that were tucked inside them.And you wonder why the Clinton Administration didn't do anything about al Qaeda. The Chief Executive can't find his pants and one of his top advisers can't find his socks.
What is it with these guys??
Former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is under criminal investigation for having taken highly classified federal documents on terrorism that should have been handed over to the 9/11 Commission.
Berger's residence was searched for the sensitive documents by the Justice Department after he'd been reviewing them at the National Archives. He had been asked by former President Clinton to review the documents prior to turning them over to the Commission.
To quote from the FOX News story, "However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports to seaports. Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio."
His socks.
The former National Security Adviser took top-secret documents, as well as handwritten notes, and stuffed them in his jacket, his pants, and his socks.
His socks. He hid them in his SOCKS!
This is the man responsible for the advising the President on the safety and security of the United States of America during the entire second Clinton term, and he smuggled stuff out in his pants and his socks.
It also appears that some of the documents have been "misplaced" and perhaps even "inadvertently destroyed."
Does this not strike anybody else as behavior that's incredibly suspect? I mean, come on! The guy is let into the National Archive to review documents so he can turn them over to the 9/11 Commission, and he pulls a Watergate-style theft?? Who does this guy think he's fooling? The question is why did Sandy Berger take the notes and documents in the first place? Well, let's run through some of the possibilities, shall we?
There is the first possibility that Berger wanted to take the notes and documents for further review before handing them over to the 9/11 Commission. Let's say that were true for just a moment. Why would he need to hide the documents and notes to get them out of the building? Why didn't he just submit them to the review process and get the necessary clearance as anyone else would have done? Good question.
The next possibility says that he was trying to sneak them out to destroy them. The documents referenced the Clinton Administration and al Qaeda. It is theoretically possible that Berger wanted to destroy some damning piece of evidence in one of the drafts housed by the Archive. That way, the evidence could never come to light and the Republicans would still bear the blame for the perceived problems in the War on Terror. Plausible, yes. It's still smacks a little of a conspiracy theory, though, for my taste.
Well, what does Berger say about it?
In a brief statement Tuesday, he said that he "made an honest mistake. It is one that I deeply regret."
An honest mistake? What exactly about taking confidential memos, papers, and notes out of the National Archive without clearance is honest? Can anyone tell me?? Honesty precludes that Mr. Berger acted in full accordance of the law and didn't lie about anything. Clearly, like his former boss, he has a somewhat twisted view of what being honest is. I mean, I'm still wondering how all of this is designed to "help" the 9/11 Commission, like he claims.
The fact is this: Sandy Berger stole government documents that were related to an ongoing inquiry--and then either lost or destroyed them. The Justice Department says there will be an investigation, and there had better be. If any of us did this we'd go to jail. More importantly, however, is the fact that these hearings, however flawed, were called to look into the worst attack on our soil, and Berger has an obligation to be nothing but forthcoming in this investigation. Playing James Bond doesn't suit him at all.
I wonder if anyone thought to check Sandy Berger's pants when they were looking for the Rose Law Firm billing records. I bet that investigation would have been over pretty quickly if they had.
William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com
