Roger L. Simon: Sandy Berger

I didn't sleep well last night. Part of the reason was I was in a hotel room in a new bed, but the other was Sandy Berger. I was up late reading the PDF file of his investigation we posted this morning on Pajamas. Everything we had heard about him was true - and more, possibly a lot more. I kept tossing in my bed, trying to puzzle out what kind of man behaves in the manner he did. Surely, a coward - but a coward of a special sort.

The more you read of the file the more you realize that there are many unanswered questions about Berger's behavior that the government has not chosen to disclose (if they know). We cited some obvious ones with the PJ post, but so much of the file has been blacked out, there may be whole areas not yet imagined. What interests me here, however, are not the facts (I don't have the sources for that), nor even the nearly obscene leniency of his sentence. (After reading even the redacted version, I can't believe this man will have his security clearance back in three years. What judge allowed that?)

No, what interests me is Berger the man. What manner of moral reprobate could act they way he did after some three thousand people were murdered by Islamist terrorists. No doubt the inner Sandy has a raft of rationalizations, varied ways of justifying his criminal behavior to himself whether he was defending his own actions or Clinton's or both. (It would be interesting to know, wouldn't it?) Perhaps Berger is even sophisticated enough (though I suspect not) to reference EM Forster's famous dictum: "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." But the problem is - Berger wasn't just betraying his country, he was betraying real, living human beings, past and potential victims of terrorism. As we learned on 9-11, it doesn't matter what country they come from. It is a betrayal of humanity as much as it is a betrayal of our country (though of course it is that.)

So "Pants" Berger is a coward of a special kind - a character out of a novel, something for a modern Tolstoy perhaps, a refined species of modern narcissist. He can also be looked at as an example of another highly-reviled category - traitor. I don't use that word loosely at all either. I don't regard Cindy Sheehan, for example, as a traitor or Michael Moore or any of those people, much as I disagree with them. They have vigorously espoused their opinions in a free society. Sandy Berger smuggled top secret documents out of our National Archives. We may never know what that was about, what was in them (or in their notes) or why he did it. He is a traitor. They are not.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Good post Roger. Hope your sleeplessness did not effect your day on the slopes :-)

I agree with your synopsis of Berger. But he is one of many, over the ages, who have been afflicted with self preservation over any other loyalty. We have all known weak men, and given particular circumstances, who is to say what any of us might do in a highly stressful situation? But that is no excuse for his actions, he is/was, ostensibly, smart enough to know, and do, better.

I would be more interested in knowing why, and how, he was allowed to escape with the paltry punishment he received. That, to me, is the more important issue. Who influenced the process? Berger's particular cowardice is relatively a minor matter. The rot in our system worries me more.

Berger's ringing words, upon being sentenced to community service: "I Regret That I Have But One Country to Trade For My Hundred Hours!"

Berger's crime bothers anyone who thinks much about it, if only because his light punishment proves the political elite really are different from you and me. They're not supposed be, in a nation of laws rather than men, but they are.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." A. C. Doyle

Now, Why would Sandy (a smart man?) risk so much for no apparent return? The 9/11 report did not single out an entity much less individual for 9/11. What's the up-side for this criminal act?

Could it be that those documents backed the much maligned story behind "the path to 9/11"?

The one Clinton himself appeared to loose his cool over, on Fox... remember?
Could it be that the 9/11 Report is not the final word? (stop - i'm not saying our gov killed over 3,000 Americans on 9/11)

Let's hope this newer national security apparatus have their eye on the ball, as opposed to before 9/11.

Sandy should serve time. Current and future administrations must get the massage; document purges will not be tolerated for any reason. Zero tolarence.

Dispicable and sad.
Unfortunately, on the substantive issue of responding proactively to the pre-9-11 terrorist threat (made very public by the 1999 Hart-Rudman report and in other places), Bush's record is no better than the poor record Berger is trying to cover.
I don't know whether incompetence or dishonesty is worse. Too often they come together and the question is moot.

Were was Sandy when Fawn Hall testified before congress about "the shredding parties" and "the jammed shredder"

If Sandy came to believe this to be a tolerable act, what other act or acts precede it to have convince him?

One thing is absolute, if Berger were a Republican he would have been sent to Leavenworth by now.

In addition to what he took out of the National Archives I wonder what Berger put back into the National Archives.

Thanks to Pajamas Media the Sandy Berger story is coming back to life. Like with many stories that surround the Clintons, the mainstream media continually fails the American people. From Waco Texas and Randy Weaver, to Vince Foster and Sandy Berger, things are quickly forgotten.

While the Liberals in conjunction with the media, had many people’s attention focused on the now debunked Karl Rove leak, Sandy Berger was busy stuffing his pants with documents. Berger was given a pass in the news and characterized as simply a “sloppy” little man.

The fact of the matter is that many questions are still left unanswered. Berger has admitted to destroying some of these documents. What was contained in these papers? It’s reminiscent of the question: how did the Rose Law Firm billing records mysteriously show up in the White House library? Maybe it was the janitor.

I know all of this is a touchy subject for Mr. Clinton. He had a fit on FOX during the Wallace interview, and was screaming about the ABC documentary The Path To 9/11. Hillary stated we should stick with the truth, and I agree, we should.

Why did Bill Clinton let Osama Bin Laden slip through his fingers time and again? Could the papers that Sandy Berger stuffed in his pants have contained information that would have shown incompetence on the part of Clinton?

I think you are being too kind in your assessment of Sandy Berger. On the other hand, news of his actions reminds us all, once again, that despite the failings of the present administration what came before was infinitely worse. God help us all if Hillary should ever gain the levers of power. I predict armed insurrection.

everyday we are reminded of the true power of the MSM press machine. while bloggers deserve every accolade they receive the MSM press is still the beast. without it very little goes forward. if the Washington Post, NY Times etc do not exploit this story very little will come out of it.

sandy is part of that larger cabal--the clintonites--that protects its own. sadly the major papers are in the same group. i only hope that during my lifetime someone writes a tell all, otherwise we will never know what went down his pants etc...the thought that this same group may once again be in the white house is all a bit too much to take.

Gloomily concur w/ Mike D and Patrick Neid. If we put that crew back in office--and Nov 07 we took a giant leap toward that--then the question of 'whither goest thou, America?' will have been answered, and the Western Enlightenment will be over with. It's not the embrace of the Left so much as it is the acceptance of the criminal way of being. The political jihad known as Clintonism will blend easily enough with the religious jihad that we mistakenly now see as our biggest threat.

I think the screaming and yelling by Clinton was at least partly because of Masood's wondering if there were any 'men' in Washington. I love that moment.

However. Take this just a little farther. Note the recent stories about Carter and Baker and Saudi money. I still believe that the money that flowed to Arafat from the EU (and Chirac, and the rest of them) included very large kickbacks to the fine leaders of the European Union.

So, look beyond Clinton incompetence: look to real down-to-earth Treachery.... for $$$. I can see sections of the Saudi government wanting to protect Bin Laden, if only for personal, family, tribal reasons. And I can see Clinton taking that $$$... because for him there has always been a Number One in his life: Himself. Evidence of this would be worth the risk to little Berger, and like all good Padrones, the Clintons have protected him from real consequences when he was caught.

What I want to know is probably gone forever - what were the notes in the margins on the destroyed documents?

Clearly they were horribly damaging to the Clinton administration, bad enough that Berger was willing to risk prison to destroy them.

My guess is that they at least confirm the ABC scenario, that the Clintons had multiple chances to get Bin Ladin and didn't, because they just didn't care. But something niggles at the back of my brain. If the Path to 9/11 were right, would Clinton have acted the way he did? I think it's out of charactor for him. I think he was trying to act outraged simply so people would think he was guilty of *what was being claimed in the show*.

What could be worse? Assume that Clinton and Company had absolutely no moral compass at all. That everything they did was to gain and retain political power.

Suppose the decision to leave Bin Ladin at large was a political calculation. They didn't think he'd do real damage in the US - they didn't see 9/11 coming. They just thought he'd keep up with Cole-like attacks. Then, at some opportune time when they or the Gore administration needed a boost, they could go get him. They knew where he was in Afghanistan, he wasn't particularly hiding. His freedom was, to a cynical administration, money in the bank.

There is something in Burger's past that Clinton knows about (remember those FBI files requisitioned by the former bouncer who Hillary put in charge of White House security?) that would destroy Berger if it was made public.

Or, maybe Clinton just showed Berger that snapshot of Vince Foster he keeps in his wallet.

In 2002 I was at a U.S. Institute of Peace meeting where he vehemently asserted--rather forcefully given the question asked--that the Sudan strike was on an Al Qaeda target. Maybe this is part of the puzzle.

The possibilities are endless. Maybe in 20 years Berger will fess up, like Robert McNamara. I doubt that anyone with a conscience could live with such guilt that long, but maybe he'll acquire one.

Bill Clinton is a different case. He has no conscience and never will have one, because he's been so successful feigning his emotions. And that is still the problem for the Democrats. They still adore him, knowing how he has lied to them and mocked their own principles. How can we take them seriously so long as they continue to make excuses for him? Nominating Hillary would just mean another 8 years of denial. Maybe that's why they love Obama so much, despite his lack of experience or any real positions on anything.

Svolich said what I keep thinking: What was worth risking his reputation and freedom to cover up? Possibly a speculation by Berger or someone else in these meetings that the terrorists might use airline hijackings to attack us. Or maybe it was just an attempt to destroy evidence that "The Path to 9/11" had it exactly correct. A loyal man falling on his sword for his leader.

That would have created a furor, but considering that the entire security apparatus of the government missed glaring clues, it would be hard to condemn one or two people.

The real problem is that these agencies have become so bureaucratized that they no longer do their jobs. Office politics, or even regular politics, supercedes national security. What did Berger do that was worse than whoever leaked the NSA wiretaps and the SWIFT program information to the New York Times, that babbling idiot we anointed the newspaper of record?

The real question here, IMO, is not why Berger decided to do this. Maybe he was paid to do it, or blackmailed into it, but that's a question we'll probably never have the answer to, and it's not of much consequence.

Neither is it very important why he thought he'd get away with it. He probably thought he wouldn't get caught.

No, the real question is why a Republican Justice department thought they had to LET him get away with it. Does anybody really believe Berger would have gotten off so lightly if the AG had been demanding his head?

My personal theory is that the "Ellen Rometsch strategy" is still active, and everybody around the Clintons will remain untouchable until the generation of prominent Republicans Clinton has dirt on have retired.

The four documents that we know Berger took were all revisions of a single document -- the Millennium Alert After Action Report. The most plausible reason that I can think of as to why he took the reports is that he needed to know exactly what they all said in great detail order that he would know which lies he (and Clinton) could get away with telling in their 9/11 Commission testimony.

Berger visited the archives four times -- in May, July, September and October, 2003. In May, July, and during part of the September visit, he dealt with uncatalogued original documents for which there were no backups, and if he did take anything, then the Archives employees would have no way to detect that anything is missing. On the other hand, they have no way to prove that nothing is missing, either. During the July and September visits, he did things that caused the Archives employees to suspect that he was stealing documents. So they set a trap for him during his next (October) visit, and because of the trap they know exactly what he did and did not steal, and they know that they still have the originals of everything he took.

So, the bottom line is this -- we are only sure about him taking the 5 printouts of the 4 versions of the MAAAR, and they know that it was impossible for him to destroy anything that the Archives had with those 4 emails, since they have the electronic copies of the emails. It is possible that he took some thing or things during the May, July and/or September trips which were uncatalogued originals with no copies in any form, but we don't know -- because they would have been uncatalogued originals with no copies in any form. If he got something in one of those first three runs, he got them "without a trace" -- in order for the Archives staff to know what was on them, they would have to have known that they existed. And all the Archives staff knows is that if Berger got something then it was one of the many many documents which he handle for which there were no traces.

The post is overwroght. No evidence that Berger dild anything--however tacky he did do it--that has not been brought before the authorities and judged, whetner you like the outcome or not. But the usual comments: if Our side had done this and on and on. In fact Your side has done so many wretched things thatg the voters made a big change--aolled the elections.
And of course Cindy and Moore not in same categoryl; After allo they did not work within the govt.

In sum: a tempest in a very small teapot and mostly venting unless you can come up with some terrible thing done, like Nixon revelations.

ps: is what Berger done, horror beyond hnorrors, worse than oujr having 3 thousand troops killed for a lie (WMD)?

Nah, Buddy, in order to keep us "honuest" postroad would have to be minimally coherent. I am simply perplexed as to what s/he is trying to say.

The former means the struggle against evil and tyranny can be safely mocked, and the latter means the Clintons can do no wrong.

1) A coverup of a campaign committee caper, which, despite the "overwroght" [sic] political attack which resulted in a presidential resignation and a lost war which cost millions of innocent deaths, actually involved nothing more than one campaign committee stealing campaign info from the other, or

2) The ex-officio National Security Advisor, in the middle of a war, stealing and destroying top-secret records from the National Archives (records not of campaign tactics, but of the fighting of a war against the deadly enemy revealed by 911, while troops are in the field against that enem--whose larger peoples are looking on for clues as to the righteousness of causes)?

I vote, #2 is worse. #1 is far worse as history, but as far as the original bad act, #1 ain't even in the same ballpark. #1 became a tragedy due to the political reaction from the same people who now minimize #2.

Really, Buddy, I wasn't being snarky -- I was totally perplexed by postroad's inchoate ramblings until you explained them to me. Although I should add that there is this natural human tendency to "see" order and understandability in things which are really random and have no content. But anyway, whether or not that was postroad's question, I agree with your answer -- thinking that sabatoging the war effort is merely a political dirty trick is an attitude of astonishing narcissism that very well could get us all killed.

Let's see, no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, draining the Al Qaeda swamp in Iraq, economy going good...

Nixon? What has he got to do with anything? Fine I meet your Nixon and raise you an LBJ.

Ever notice how when Democrats lose an election it has nothing to do with the people wanting a change...but when Democrats manage to win an election is a frigging mandate?

I think there is more to the whole Berger thing than we know or are likely to know for some time. It is bizarre.

And I think that postie's post is typical of the folks who judge but can not be judged. That is how the Democrats manage to get away with voting for the war and the Iraq Liberation Act and George [slam dunk} Tenet and still claim innocence and ignorance.

Berger says he merely took the documents so he could better prepare for his testimony at the 9/11 commission. He also says he "knew he was dealing with copies", therefore we shouldn't think he was trying to cleanse the record. But there are some details that belie his claims:

1) Berger admits to taking one of the MAARs in his September visit . (This is the document Archives employees didn't know was missing until Berger returned it among the "October" documents they knew he took. Also keep in mind, these are not single pages...some "documents" were 12-15 pages.) According to the Washington Post's summary, on his October visit "Berger was surprised to see other copies of the document in the files he was given, and he slid each one under his briefcase to hide them". Why would he risk stealing copies of the same document if all he wanted was to aid his preparation? This sounds more like someone trying to cleanse the record.

2) If his intention was to aid his preparation, why did he destroy them the very same night he stole them?

There's a lot of reliance among his defenders on his statement that he "knew he was handling copies" [in Sept, Oct]. We're meant to conclude that the copies given to Berger were created solely for his review---separate from the copies being compiled to go to the 9/11 Commission. But suppose the copies Berger reviewed WERE the records to be sent to the Commission. In fact the IG's report states at one point that these were the boxes to go to the Commission. If Berger removed "copies" from that compilation, it would be as good as destroying the originals. The only way to get caught would be IF some future historian took an interest in these particular documents...AND compared them to the documents that actually arrived at the Commission...AND reviewed the retrieval methods at the Archives to determine that these documents were on the list of responsive items...AND discovered evidence that the Archives did, indeed, copy them for production but they disappeared somewhere between copying and production to the Commission. If it were me, I would have felt confident such a scenario was unlikely to unfold. Even if someone did connect all those dots, it would probably be attributed to sloppiness at the Archives or among Commission staffers...there would be no particular reason to suspect Berger.

And, of course, we're left with the added fact that there's no way to know whether originals disappeared during his May/July reviews.

Perhaps someone can help me with this one. There are several discussions in the report of "sticky notes". Such notes apparently disappeard in some cases, were moved to another document in others. But it was such a mish-mash I couldn't discern which visit they related to or exactly what they concluded. Anyone have a better reading of this?

Hmmm. Now that I think about it, why wait for a "historian" to connect the dots I mentioned above?

1) Take the LIST of items that resulted from the
Archives' records search on responsive key words.

2) Compare that to the Archives' detailed records of which
documents WERE compiled and copied for production.

I wonder if the investigation included to whom the cellphone calls were made? I don't suppose he *added* any docs to the 911 Commission dump?

Buddy:
It wasn't just cell calls. In a couple of places, when the report talks about the Archives employee leaving Berger alone in his/her office, it says that person "watched the lights" on the phone outside the office. It's pretty vague, but the implication is that calls were made on Archives phone lines.

Another vague reference was to the incident when he/she stepped out and watched the lights, but they never came on. The implication may be that Berger was not making a call, but was using the time alone to stuff documents somewhere on his person.

As for adding documents to the record, the report never deals with that. There was one occasion when Berger returned a "folder" and Archives employees discovered the folder's contents had been removed and then replaced with other pages. But it seemed to me the "new" pages were others that Berger had been given to review, not documents brought in for insertion. This, however, could have led to the speculation about his adding documents to the record.

Just as disturbing are the questions surrounding why President Bush allowed the Justice Department to accept the sentence and why the Republican majority in Congress failed to conduct a public investigation of this whole sordid deal.

What kind of prosecuter would cut such a lenient deal unless the perp had spilled all the facts and motivation for the crime to his complete and total satisfaction?

I gotta hope that somewhere someone in the adminstration knows exactly what it was Berger took, and what the reason was, and hopefully it was just a relatively harmless CYA panic. It is amazing how sensitive about "the legacy" Clinton and his insiders are. A legacy that is so thin that even Clinton partisons can only point to things like the "Family Medical Leave Act" as one of the primary pillers of his legacy.

The explanation is probably somewhere between "we didn't want to tear the country apart during wartime" and "the Clintons will fight back dirty".

Then you have to wonder what it is that's so explosive that both partisans would agree to bury it.

One of the first things that the archivists reported bothered them about Berger's behavior was that he was significantly adding to the chaotic state of the files -- taking things out of multiple folders at once, mixing them up, them shoving them back into folders in whatever order. That's where the post-it thing comes in -- he was pulling off post-its in order to read the stuff underneath, then just sticking them willy-nilly on other stuff.

It's very hard to tell from the report whether this behavior had some purpose other than carelessness on Berger's part. The sense that I got from the report was that while it was going on the staff thought that he was just being a slob, but that it was only later, after they discovered him sneaking around stealing stuff, they started thinking back over everything they had seen him do over all four visists and became retroactively suspicious.

The accusations here *could* be true, but all rational and factual investigations seem to conclude that no documents were removed permanently, and no documents were added:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_terror_documents

It amazes me how the Right seems to explode into venomous indignation over mere innuendo (this topic) and/or matters only tangentially related to national interest (Clinto BJ denial).

I can only conclude that for these people the "truh" (i.e., rational deduction) is less important than preserving and imposing their worl-view on everone. A sad reality.

Mr. Lario, I suggest you go back and read the IG report on Berger again. The one thing that stands out, is Berger's actions once he was out of the building. Looking for places to hide TCD is not what top level white house national security types do,period. His actions had all the markings of a man acting for a hostile state. As many have said before, it was Sandy Berger's own actions that convicted him. What we don't know is why he was let off so lightly. My guess, high level concern about an ongoing operation that Berger might have knowable off. Oh, to be a fly on the wall, at that DOJ meeting.

Peter, the saddest reality of all is that so many people are so determined to remain forever blindly oblivious to the sad array of fundamental tenets of Clintonism.

Just listen to you--since the personal behavior of a president is "only tangentially related to the national interest" then there is no reason for a president (who, remember, ran for the office) to have any standard of behavior other than his own fancy.

Any reason he couldn't behave? Knowing the nightmare his cheap thrills could cause the billions of people who value these things differently?

It's not as if he was stricken by bad fortune, you know--he was a president, husband, and father with free choice and unlimited opportunity to not seduce his barely-adult employee.

And then with another free choice not to paralyze the nation trying to weasle out of the opprobrium following bad choice #1.

Well, here's what I think: attitudes such as yours are a grave weakness in our culture.

Well, gosh, if the people policing Wikipedia say Berger didn't destroy any originals, then he didn't.

Neither wisdom, nor common sense, resides in Washington, DC; it resides elsewhere - in our people in our towns. Washington, DC obtains its power from the income tax, and the ignominous power of vote-buying.

But many will vote away their personal freedom for a bowl of lentils, especially when they feel spiritually and personally uncertain, frail, and lacking in a "support system".

29 And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:
30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.
31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.
32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Don't lose sleep over it Rodger... It's the way of our nation, apparently. What political leaders haven't yet been touched by scandal? Which political leaders have stood up and said "Hey everyone, I screwed up really badly... sorry about that!"?

None of it matters in the end though. If every instance of corruption, cover up, scandal and bullshit were properly dealt with, I fear we would have no government at all. The Democrats and the Republicans both have abused the American trust time and again. Is Sandy really so surprising? From the administration that gave us Waco and Ruby Ridge... a little theft matters? Come on, wake up and realize that the government is not a place with a little scandal here and there... its full up to its rotting neck in abuse and misuse of power. From Watergate to Waco, from the Civil War to the Patriot Act, from Iran-Contra to warrentless wiretaps... most members of the government seem to do whatever they think they can get away with.

Sandy Berger will soon have his own talk radio show with other greats like G. Gordon Liddy and Ollie North. They will all spout their political bullshit and those that feed on such bile will think these men are true Patriots. All the while, our nation will continue to fall further and further into a impotent and distrusted bureaucracy without anyone remembering exactly how it became such.

Don't lose sleep over the antics of Sandy, lose sleep over the convulsions of Uncle Sam.

Granted all that, dclydew, if we just give up in hopelessness, it's certain to get even worse.

BL, I fear many would welcome the knock, after all, heaven forbid they should stray from the path. I mean, if your betters have decided you have done wrong, then who the hell are you... I fear, in some ways, we have come to that simplistic appraisal.

Independence and Freedom of the Individual are, as they always have been, I suppose, under attack.

dclydew, you make a point, perhaps with some truth imbued. But I submit that much of this crap could be ended with a few of the old virtues. Embarrassment, shame and community ostracism for idiot's, who aren't really idiot's, but deluded by their smartness. Their simple desire to tell everyone else what the hell to do. IOW's sheer ego. And we let them get away with it.

Well, Mr. Lairo, we'll know in about 40 years, won't we, when the Senate files are opened.

Traitors disturb because they remind us that they enemy has sometimes found a way into our innermost corridors of power.
We don't like to think about that.
I admire our young soldiers, our children, for many reasons. And for this reason I admire them the most. And am in awe of them, in fact.
They know someone in their chain of command may be the person they are fighting and the enemy who is trying to kill them.
And they choose to fight, anyway.

December 22, 2006: Sandy Berger - a rumination

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post