« Saint Stepinac? | Main | Oh, Good »
Sandy Berger
There was a post here before that I've deleted, since I'm not sure I correctly understood the news accounts on this. Berger took five slightly different copies of an after-action report out of the archives and destroyed three of them. I'm seeing two different possible construals of what this means:
- 1. There is an original after-action report out there somewhere, of which X copies exist, each of which is slightly different. Berger took five of the archives home and destroyed three of them.
- 2. There were several slightly different versions of an after-action. Each one was duplicated X times. Berger took five of the duplicates out of the archives and destroyed three of them.
April 1, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8345511b669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sandy Berger:
» Was Berger covering up from Asymmetrical Information
This Matthew Yglesias post is more than a little misleading. All Sandy Berger did, he says, is remove copies from the archives. He's not destroying anything of value! Er, my understanding is that what he removed were drafts. With the writing of various... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 1, 2005 4:25:06 AM
» Berger from Balloon Juice
The Bush Administration is rightly castigated for whatever lapses they are responsible for that may have ignored or downplayed the... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 1, 2005 10:46:46 AM
» Berger from Balloon Juice
The Bush Administration is rightly castigated for whatever lapses they are responsible for that may have ignored or downplayed the... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 1, 2005 12:52:23 PM
Comments
SOMETHING peculiar was going on, Matt. And -- according to the Post -- the five versions, including the three Berger destroyed, actually "contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch." I would very much like to know more about those.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Apr 1, 2005 1:45:00 AM
Washington Post:
"Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business."...
"Officials have said the five versions were largely similar, but contained slight variations as the after-action report moved around different agencies of the executive branch."
Matthew Yglesias:
"I'm 100 percent confident that he was not covering up some damning piece of information about the Clinton administration. Why? Because what he took were copies. So, first, it wouldn't make any sense to implement a cover-up like that."
Matthew Yglesias: A Reality-Based Weblog. 100 percent confident.
Posted by: notinkansas | Apr 1, 2005 1:51:06 AM
100% may be stating the case too strongly, but Matt's point that if there was anything there it would have been leaked is almost definetly correct. Bush protecting Berger is really too absurd to even consider. One may be tempted to argue that the originals didn't contain anything damning and that only the copies did, but you'd also have to claim that no Republican one had bothered to look at the copies prior to Berger removing them.
Posted by: washerdreyer | Apr 1, 2005 1:58:36 AM
Amazing. Compared to the lies the Bushies get away with every day this scolding of Berger seems ridiculous. Sure he made a dumb mistake and one must question his motives. On the other had one must question why so much government business is considered confidential.
But Cheney and Bush distort and deceive with impunity about important issues like preemptive war, energy policy, and SS, and most recently "the culture of life" ... and the mainstream press for the most part has been too chickenshit to call them on it.
Posted by: Poohbear | Apr 1, 2005 2:09:16 AM
One could imagine material damning to Berger and Clinton, or at least damaging to their reputations inside the intel community, that the Bush administration would prefer not to leak. I do not remember the specific subject of the memos, if we ever knew.
Example:personal negotiations between Berger, Clinton, and top Saudi officials(Abdullah?) to allow Osama's escape from Sudan to Afghanistan.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 1, 2005 2:15:25 AM
To paraphrase Poohbear: "But, but! But, but!"
Posted by: notinkansas | Apr 1, 2005 2:20:04 AM
I suppose Berger could have been in the depths of a meth binge, and cut up a bunch of paper in a frenzy of unthinking activity. It may be a little more likely, however, that there was something unique to the documents destroyed which Berger did not want more people to see and discuss beyond those who were already familiar with them. As to the national importance of the data that Berger was seeking to suppress, who knows? Maybe he jots down obscene limericks on circulated memos, and didn't want them coming out in a government report.
Posted by: Will Allen | Apr 1, 2005 2:34:11 AM
washerdreyer wisely deploys a variation of the Reality-Based Rather/Memo-gate defense: if I'm really so full of sh!t, why haven't you called me on it? Checkmate!
Posted by: notinkansas | Apr 1, 2005 2:38:49 AM
He shredded them with scissors? I thought his original story was 'accidentally misplaced or destroyed'? Is he a sleep-shredder?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Apr 1, 2005 2:49:03 AM
Matthew, we're waiting...
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005235.html
Posted by: ronb | Apr 1, 2005 3:23:32 AM
According to ABC news:
Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said Berger 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 still missing are some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration.
This strongly suggests that we are talking about Matthew's option #1. But as usual it would be nice to get some clarity from journalists on the crucial issues.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | Apr 1, 2005 3:36:17 AM
I think it is 1) from what I am reading
Essentially each draft had different handwritten comments on it by different Clinton administration people. Presumably some of these comments where then incorporated into the final document but others were not. Berg(l)er took out and destroyed some of these draft documents thus losing for ever whatever handwritten insights where on them that were not incorporated into the final doc.
Posted by: Francis | Apr 1, 2005 4:16:49 AM
I think notinkansas was insulting me, and quite possibly rightly so, but I have no idea what he or she was saying.
Posted by: washerdreyer | Apr 1, 2005 5:43:01 AM
Really, there are only two possible explanations. Either Berger WAS trying to destroy some relevant information about possible neglect by Clinton in this matter, or else he took the papers home to study them at leisure (and maybe photocopy them) in extreme detail -- and in the latter case, why the hell didn't he smuggle ALL the copies back in? We do indeed have a seriously stinky situation here.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Apr 1, 2005 5:52:44 AM
Washerdreyer, no - s/he said you did something wisely. This can't be an insult, it was a compliment. You must've done something right. Something - who knows what?..
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 1, 2005 6:14:11 AM
"Example:personal negotiations between Berger, Clinton, and top Saudi officials(Abdullah?) to allow Osama's escape from Sudan to Afghanistan"
"According to ABC news . . . still missing are some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration."
So in other words, despite the Clinton-hating fantasy above, the memos were about one of the Clinton adminstration's big successes against terrorism. Not likely to be anything damning.
Posted by: rea | Apr 1, 2005 6:35:58 AM
the only way we'll ever know is if we anally rape him with a glow-stick.
Posted by: cleek | Apr 1, 2005 7:10:38 AM
It looks like selective, politically-inspired prosecution to me. The serious case of who leaked to the Iranians the knowledge we had cracked their codes has not been investigated at all, to my knowledge.
Posted by: Bob H | Apr 1, 2005 7:36:29 AM
Option (1) assumes that Mr. Berger is a rational actor with something to hide. Option (2) assumes that Mr. Berger risked imprisonment and disgrace for nothing. Why should we assume the latter has any likelihood?
Posted by: sammler | Apr 1, 2005 9:13:05 AM
I thought news reports at the time said Berger only had access to copies. The originals were never given to him. This must not be correct or I am misremembering. The room was also under camera surveillance, if I remember that part right. The info should be available if someone will dig it out and report it.
Posted by: ted | Apr 1, 2005 9:28:23 AM
The Republican hypocrisy on this issue is suffocating. Mishandling sensitive classified information is bad! Unless it helps us politically! What a joke.
As for the underlying issue, if Berger did (1), he should be punished. If he did (2), he should get a slap on the wrist. Let the facts play out at his sentencing hearing.
Posted by: JP | Apr 1, 2005 9:51:00 AM
Francis has it correct.
The copies differed by their margin notes.
Since Berger is now admitting that he took them intentionally and lied to the Archives people about taking them, there must have been something in the margin notes that he wanted to destroy before the documents could go to the 9/11 commission.
It's inconceivable that he would take the risk and try to cover it up if there was nothing to be concealed.
Remember, at the time he did this, he was prominently mentioned as a likely Secretary of State if Kerry won.
Posted by: pilsener | Apr 1, 2005 9:58:19 AM
I can't believe that in the 21st century our government officials have to use scissors when they need to rectify history; this is truly incredible. Over 50 years ago Orwell suggested:
...For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/4/
That's 57 years ago! What can be simplier? And the US National Archives still don't have reliable memory holes? WTF?
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 1, 2005 10:22:23 AM
Folks, I'm as yellow-dog Democrat as they come, but Berger wouldn't have done this if he weren't hiding something, and I've yet to see ANY indication he had any right to destroy these docs.
If these facts are proved, I would be quite happy seeing him in jail. Sure, he should share a cell block with whoever blew Valerie Plame's cover, and quite a few other Bushies, but we can't make the Republicans our moral standard. Because they *have* no morals.
Posted by: Anderson | Apr 1, 2005 10:35:56 AM
The copies he destroyed were the ones with original handwriting! Come on, knowing this does not require super-human awareness or concentration or anything.
I don't think I've ever "just happened" to remove and destroy documents from a library.
Could we at least pretend to have one standard that transcends the politics of the criminal?
Posted by: Captain Mainline | Apr 1, 2005 10:47:23 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
