“The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security,” a statement issued by Mr. Kerry’s campaign said.

I hope they put this guy away for awhile. Oooops. I mean Berg(l)er. He was observed. Documents were marked after the first ones ‘of interest’ came up missing. Guess what? Innocent until proven guilty, but when he confesses, no matter the shoddy excuse, HE DID IT.

LEAKS?

The only thing that’s leakin’ here is Kerry’s RubberRaft. It’s goin’ to be real interesting to watch these guys go after the last PFD.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 23, 2004 09:52 AM

I’m pretty certain that Berger knew about the Berger investigation quite some time before the White House did.

So why did he wait until he did to resign as Kerry’s advisor? The answer seems pretty obvious - he waited until the Commision report was due then leaked the story to deflect attention from the 911 report contents that show the Clinton/Berger tag team attempts at misdirection and obfuscation regarding Sudan and bin Laden. After all, the documents don’t exist…

Posted by: CERDIP at July 23, 2004 10:07 AM

Purely as a detached observer, credit to the White House and CinC for keeping the lid on this one. The executive exists to prtect the innocent until proven guilty (along with the judiciary). Doubtless the Democrats will demand that the Executive should have revealed all months ago.
To have done so would have been immoral. It has now leaked and GWB has been a man of stature, refusing to club the “Baby Seal”, he has been presented with. Credit to the man.
Like him or not, he , has behaved with a certain style.
Respect.

Max

Posted by: max at July 23, 2004 10:10 AM

It would be reasonably perspicacious to remember the timelines here. October was Months before Kerry became the presumptive nominee. Indeed, it looked for all the world at the time that he would not be.

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 10:59 AM

“It would be reasonably perspicacious to remember the timelines here.”

Do you always use those words?

” October was Months before Kerry became the presumptive nominee.”

Yup. You’re right. Soooo. Mr. “Informal” Advisor decides to be - uh - that word you used - about letting Senator Kerry in on the contents of his Socks?

“Indeed, it looked for all the world at the time that he would not be.”

Well, O Bright One - Back in February would have been about right…

The italicized portion Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 10:59 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 23, 2004 11:20 AM

Fair point Don.

Posted by: max at July 23, 2004 11:20 AM

CptD: I am responsible for my own diction. If you have Any problem with it at all, there are tools out there to assist you. I commend you to the use of them. Education is A Good Thing. Not always easy, but always rewarding.

The timeline is interesting because it casts some light on why Berger might have been doing what he was doing. We know from elsewhere that he was preparing testimony for the 911 Commission. We do Not know that he was doing it on behalf of the Kerry campaign effort — which is the point you’ve continually attempted to make.

Your observation on February is meaningful only in that Kerry became the frontrunner after Iowa. By that time, the investigation had been going on for four, coming up on five months.

Berger clearly knew about it. If he chose not to tell Kerry about it for his own reasons, they are his own reasons. Kerry is not responsible for them. If he did tell Kerry about it, and Kerry decided Not to reveal the information publicly, then his action is the same one praised by Max immediately above. There is something to be said for letting investigations run to their logical end before starting to accuse folks of wrongdoing.

Unless, of course, you have a more clearly partisan agenda. Clearly you do. Clearly someone else did in this case as well.

Which is OK by me — just so’s everyone knows what the game is.

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 11:28 AM

Don,

Re: “If he did tell Kerry about it, and Kerry decided Not to reveal the information publicly, then his action is the same one praised by Max immediately above.”

With the exception that one could call into question Kerry’s judgment and/or sanity.

Which is why I think it is reasonable to infer that Kerry truly did not know. Why sign up a guy that is a ticking time bomb?

I think Berger was hoping it would all blow over and remain quiet — wishful thinking. He did Kerry a disservice by being associated with him in any way.

Posted by: DWC at July 23, 2004 11:43 AM

CDoc,

I found your tone disrepectful and bordering on insulting. Mind the comment policy or don’t comment. Thanks.

Posted by: Alan @ TCP at July 23, 2004 11:52 AM

“Unless, of course, you have a more clearly partisan agenda. Clearly you do. Clearly someone else did in this case as well.”

Clearly, you have no idea what MY agenda is, political or otherwise. As this has nothing whatsoever to do with my agenda, I’m curious as to why you claim it was partisan on my part. I could care less if Kerry was a Green. He ain’t fit to be the CiC. Berger ain’t fit to wear the NSA pants, either. Or the Socks.

“Which is OK by me — just so’s everyone knows what the game is.”

Are you talkin’ my game or yours? The CiC and his entire Admin are playing TexasHold’em. Have been. There’s nothing to be gained by using a Scattergun when the opposition is already bloodyin’ their own feet. MOF, that’s an easy accusation to make about the opposition, ain’t it? THEY LEAKED THIS! THEY OUTED PLAME! THEY LIED!

Get a grip, Don. You are SPINNING.

The italicized portion Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 11:28 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 23, 2004 12:03 PM

I guess the Dems would have disclosed anything they may have on the Administration immediately too, right?

They are all political animals… timing for hitting at your opponent is critical. When caught red-handed, the only thing a crook can do is complain that the accusers or witnesses are the problem and not the crime itself.

All in all, this is not one of the Dems and Kerry’s crowd’s brightest moments… they just have to hope that the media goes to something else or works extra hard at covering Kerry’s six by attacking the Administration on leaks.

Posted by: steve at July 23, 2004 12:05 PM

The link between Berger and Kerry is a bit of a stretch and frankly Berger did the right thing.

That said the link between Berger and Clinton is crystal clear. I certainly seems to me that once again an FOB is taking the fall for Clinton.

Also, Berger’s actions cast serious doubt on the value of the 9/11 commission report. Whatever they got from Berger certainly wasn’t the unvarnished truth.

In anycase the 9/11 report is seriously damaged in any case but as a piece of history it is interesting.

Remember that character in Catch 22? I think it was either General Dreedle or PP Peckham. I any case this was the guy who would never say shrewd when he could just as easily say perspicacious.

Heller got a lot of laughs by making fun of that type of person, it was a hoot.

Posted by: skip at July 23, 2004 12:56 PM

Is there some language where one can say “perspicacious” as easily as one can say “shrewd”?

Do we know for sure that the Berger investigation story was leaked rather than uncovered by some investigative reporter? (Or do we just take it for granted that the term “investigative reporter” is no longer applicable?) That quibble aside, who leaked the story that Samuel Berger is under investigation for removing documents from the National Archives? Knowing the answer would seem to be in order for ascribing motives to whoever did so. I haven’t seen any reports that reliably identify the leak’s source.

Posted by: NickBeal at July 23, 2004 01:20 PM

Well I know the leftists will dispute my source, but Fox’s morning show stated the story had been leaked two weeks prior to Fox ever covering it. They didn’t provide their original source or anything… but, this may be somewhat interesting:

The day the story broke, it was on the cover of USA Today, yet on page 18 of the NYT.

I’m willing to bet that the NYT knew about this case long before the real press coverage began.

Posted by: jackhammer at July 23, 2004 01:48 PM

“That quibble aside, who leaked the story that Samuel Berger is under investigation for removing documents from the National Archives? Knowing the answer would seem to be in order for ascribing motives to whoever did so. I haven’t seen any reports that reliably identify the leak’s source.”

The WSJ Print Edition Op-Ed piece (can’t remember who wrote it) yesterday felt of much more gravity to the public would be the contents of the documents that are missing. Apparently, those that are missing were marked in some manner so that if they did again disappear they could be tracked.

But you are are not addressing the disposition of documents with your question, but rather who leaked the information that documents were take by Berger from the Archives.

So I suppose speculation could abound for why either the White House would do it (after being accused of ‘outing’ Plame, how long would it take to point a finger in that direction?) or Berger/Clinton people, hoping that the timing would blunt the criticism on the Dems in general.

Leaked or no, this stuff is important.

the italicized portion Posted by: NickBeal at July 23, 2004 01:20 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 23, 2004 01:56 PM

I thought that the Berger investigation had been sent (escalated?) to the Justice Department, which is supposedly a leakier place. I think the timing is a non-issue.

Even if someone did leak deliberately for whatever reason, can we get back to the outrage: our former NSA stole and destroyed (or lost) codeword secret documents—documents that required the highest possible security clearance.

Remember what happened when some Republican idiots tried to burgle the DNC headquarters?! I was a kid, but there was wall-to-wall TV coverage and practically no news about anything else. And exactly how many of our nation’s top-secret documents were compromised that time?

Posted by: Bostonian at July 23, 2004 01:59 PM

Well Bostonian part of the blame for the lack of outrage has to be laid at the feet of simple desensitization. After eight years of shennanigans in the white house it’s kind of hard to expect anything else.

I’m pretty fond of the theory I heard this Am on bill Bennet’s show: Lanny Davis leaked the story. this theory basically states that Lanny outed himself and his leak system in his own book. He even named the guy he liked to leak to. That guy happens to be the AP reported that broke the Berger story.

OK what’s the motive. Again this theory uses the Lanny Davis book. It’s a pre emptive leak. by leaking it now they can spin it there way and act like it’s not a big deal (Clinton’s We were all laughing about it).

It’s just so damned cynical. That’s my problem with it. These people have treated our safety in a very cavalier manner. This is why the cannot be trusted with the white house ever again.

Posted by: skip at July 23, 2004 03:21 PM

NB: The language you seek in English. The terms are not interchangeable. They have quite different denotative meanings. I used the one that was most appropriate. Perspicacious does not equate to Shrewd in this context.

CptD: The investigation is one thing. It had been going on for months. Had it been all that important publicly, there’d have been no problem with releasing/leaking it previously in order to focus public attention on it. But in October, it wouldn’t have been all that terribly interesting. It’s far more interesting now.

Skip: There is no particular information that suggests this incident had Anything at all to do with Safety. Material is routinely classified in DeeCee for all sorts of reasons, few of which have to do with Safety or National Security. Indeed, classifying thing is one tool available as a cover-up to keep otherwise embarassing information from the public. For example, do You know who classified the documents in the first place? Do you know why?

Of course you don’t! But let’s just suppose that it was classified by a Clinton administration person. Would you not then rant about the fact that it had been classified, if you thought that perhaps someone was covering things up? Of course you would!

This investigation has been running for coming up on 9-10 months. Had it been dealing with anything hypersensitive or crucial to National Security, much more effort would have been focused on it long since. As it has gone on, it has been a decidedly Low Key Investigation.

Fan the flames as you will, when it all sorts out there will be less here than meets the eye.

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 06:03 PM

“…let’s just suppose that it was classified by a Clinton administration person. Would you not then rant about the fact that it had been classified, if you thought that perhaps someone was covering things up? Of course you would!”

Mr. Clarke thought several of these documents were very important. Have you read his book?

“Had it been dealing with anything hypersensitive or crucial to National Security, much more effort would have been focused on it long since. As it has gone on, it has been a decidedly Low Key Investigation.”

Perhaps, Don. As the WSJ suggested yesterday, let us all see what was considered so sensitive that we ought not know about it.

“Fan the flames as you will, when it all sorts out there will be less here than meets the eye.”

Are you privy to these documents? Do you know what they contained? If they were so lackluster, would you stake JailTime on stuffing them in your Socks?

This just sounds like more Counter-clockwise spin.

The italicized portion Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 06:03 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 23, 2004 06:39 PM

CptD: I have indeed read Clarke’s book. I have also read others as well dealing with similar subjects. I have also read how The Right says he’s a liar. Apparently that is a selective sort of term — he’s a liar on things The Right doesn’t like, but the veritable Font of Revealed Truth on things they like.

I’ll just wait and see how it all plays out.

The WSJ has a point about trying to discern what was so all-fired important. In contradistinction to you, who claims to Know that Americans Are Being Killed thereby, and have been fulminating about it ab initio.

I’ll just wait and see how it all plays out.

But the observation remains: If this was such an all-fired important matter, the DoJ and others would have had such a simple matter resolved in far less than 9-10 months. There’d have been a Truly Huge effort expended on it. But there isn’t. This is, as I said, a decidedly low-effort sort of investigation thus far.

I’ll just wait and see how it all plays out.

Berger should be punished for whatever he did. I said that early on, and it’s still a correct observation. But that’s a Far Cry Indeed from the Imperfect Storm such as y’all are trying to whip up over it.

And yes — I really do know what your agenda is. It’s not as though you hide it, after all. I have no problem with it. Your role is traditional, and is played out endlessly. I don’t mind a bit. This is Politics — not tiddlywinks.

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 07:12 PM

“The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security,” a statement issued by Mr. Kerry’s campaign said.

The timing of this leak shows that the Democrats - specifically the Kerry campaign - wanted this information to come out now and not in October.

Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2004 09:55 PM

“I have also read how The Right says he’s a liar. Apparently that is a selective sort of term — he’s a liar on things The Right doesn’t like, but the veritable Font of Revealed Truth on things they like.”

I’m glad you’re addressing ‘the Right’ and not me Don, cuz I’d have to call you on that statement. I did not say he was a Liar. There are many things that he says (and does not say) in the book that I find fault with - IOW, they do not fit with the facts as we know them.

“I’ll just wait and see how it all plays out.”

What’s goin’ to play out with this diversion into old news? Clarke had his 15 minutes of Fame.

“The WSJ has a point about trying to discern what was so all-fired important.”

You very carefully reworded what I said, which was a paraphrase on my part from the WSJ. No need to discern. What did the documents contain that it was worth becoming an admitted felon?

“In contradistinction to you, who claims to Know that Americans Are Being Killed thereby, and have been fulminating about it ab initio.”

You left the building with that one. QUOTE ME on this thread or any thread. It just irritates the crap out of me when commentors put words in my mouth.

“I’ll just wait and see how it all plays out.”

NO. YOU. WON‘T. YOU will dig up the quotes whereby I have Americans dead over this.

“But the observation remains: If this was such an all-fired important matter, the DoJ and others would have had such a simple matter resolved in far less than 9-10 months. There’d have been a Truly Huge effort expended on it. But there isn’t. This is, as I said, a decidedly low-effort sort of investigation thus far.”

Rather embarrassing ain’t it? Yup. I think Berger will have to change his Socks a few times before this is through the SpinCycle. Hell, maybe we’ll all start calling him the owner of the Pants of Humiliation. It seems appropriate, and sets a far LowerStandard for SocialBehavior.

“I’ll just wait and see how it all plays out.”

Seems appropriate.

“Berger should be punished for whatever he did. I said that early on, and it’s still a correct observation. But that’s a Far Cry Indeed from the Imperfect Storm such as y’all are trying to whip up over it.”

I have to admit that I think Berger is just another example of the MinimalistCause of the Left, which you so aptly defend. As to what I mean by that, examine YOUR words - ‘…for whatever he did’.

We KNOW what he did. He is a THIEF. An UnCommon PettyThief. Now, others have said he was a Traitor, but I simply say what he did was TREACHERY. That activity (treachery)implies a certain amount of trust was earned before it could be thrown off like a cheap pair of pants. You minimize it. The Left minimizes it. The Democratic Party minimizes it. You are teaching our children a wonderful lesson - It’s okay to cheat on a test. Everyone does it, and if you get caught - HEY! It’s only a test!

“And yes — I really do know what your agenda is. It’s not as though you hide it, after all. I have no problem with it.”

NO. YOU. DON‘T. If you want to know what my agenda is from now until November 2nd, it is to remind everyone who can read my words or hear my voice that I have a very personal bone to pick with Senator Kerry. He does not represent a single thing that I can agree with. Not one. Being everything to everyone means he is nothing to nobody.

“Your role is traditional, and is played out endlessly. I don’t mind a bit. This is Politics — not tiddlywinks.”

Traditional? NO. IT. IS. NOT. It is not often we have an opportunity to have an open discussion about how this is a Society of Monsters or not. We don’t often have the opportunity to discuss such ‘Matters of Consequence’. You know, Honesty. Integrity. Faith. I’m involved this time. The man said things 34 years ago that made me ashamed to consider myself an American, much less a good and decent Citizen. I want that back. To see Kerry revealed for the FalseFront he is gives me cause to hope that all is not lost. That he surrounds himself with those of the same mind does not surprise me one bit. That you defend (or minimize) such behavior does not surprise me either.

The italicized portion Posted by: Don at July 23, 2004 07:12 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 24, 2004 08:47 AM