Representative Tom Davus of The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has released a report entitled Sandy Berger’s Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions. It seems that Berger’s theft was, in fact, as intentional and sneaky as feared. It also seems that not all of the documents he pilfered were copies, some were originals. SOme of those documents were from the files of Richard Clarke.
This is very disturbing. Documents are gone and we don’t even know which ones or where they went. Or why. The 9/11 Commission was given incorrect information regarding the extent of this theft.
I scanned the last Sandy Berger thread by Mr. Moto to see the tenor of this issue on SDMB. I was surprised to see it treated so lightly by some. Surprised because it seems to me that this issue would be one that anyone on the right or left would view with equal disgust.
So, I ask, mainly to those who felt that this wasn’t too big a deal before, does this new information cause you to change your view od the incident. Should Mr. Berger be called back onto the carpet? Can anything be done to him at this point, in light of this fuller understanding of his theft?
Well, color me skeptical. I haven’t read the report but when the conclusions are so at odds with what the Justice Dept concluded (under Bush’s watch no less), I have to be kind of skeptical. There’s been a strange divide on this with, at least in the past, the arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page arguing against the right-wing conspiracy theories regarding Berger’s actions. (There is another editorial from them along these lines too but I can’t find it now.) I am sort of curious to see if that page now does an about-face on this or whether they weigh in critical of the report or saying it doesn’t change their opinion.
Of course, what Sandy Berger did was wrong in any case. However, the question is whether it was wrong at the level of simply mishandling classified documents because he wanted more time to review them or whether he had more nefarious purposes.
I invite you to read the summary (a apge and a half) or skim the findings. I would have supplied it but I can’t copy and paste out of the pdf*. I’m curious if knowing the facts of his actions would change your views.
I don’t see a “T”, but thanks. If you do go to the cite can you tell me if you see one. I’m on a Mac and I don’t know if that matters.
To the issue. You would be the better judge of what would constitute new information to you, so I invite you to review the summary or the findings. It’s not very long. But what was new to me was:
-that it is a fact that he stuffed documents into his socks
-that it is a fact that he stuffed documents into his underwear
-that he orchestrated being alone with documents on more than one occassion
-that some of the documents he reviewed were originals with no copies
-that after stealing some documents he left them at a construction site
-that what the 911 Commission report was told regarding the extent of the theft was incorrect
-that some of the documents he was reviewing were those of Rochard Vlarke, and may have been of vital importance to the 911 commission
Some of these things are new to me, some are better clarified. I invite you to review for yourself for the reason mentioned above.
As feared by whom? I don’t find it frightening. I find it disgusting.
This is a good summary of why there doesn’t seem to be any new information.
I had assumed that it was intentional, sneaky, corrupt and a theft, but I haven’t read the Wall Street Journal article. They are generally a reliable Conservative source of information. I am a Liberal.
I think I will read that article before I call in the hanging judge.
The bit about him concealing documents in his clothing was reported by FOX on 7/20/04. Here’s a link:
The same story contains a quote which indicates he reviewed the documents over several days:
“In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives,” Berger said.
Here’s another quote that indicates there may have been no copies of some documents:
The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report as it was being refined by the Clinton administration. The Archives is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents
I think I’ve read more recent stories that confirmed that he had access to some documents for which there are no copies, and that it can’t be confirmed what exactly is missing. I’m not going to bother digging deeper, but it doesn’t appear that much of this is really “new information”.
The man has entered a guilty plea, and been sentenced. At this point, I’m more concerned about the sloppiness in the National Archives. Why don’t we know at least what documents exist in every file?
Well, since I’m on a roll, and a google of “Rochard Vlarke” did not look promising, may I assume you meant former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke?
If so, that was revealed on July 21, 2004 in this National Review article:
*The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the “code word” level, which is the government’s highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.
It is not clear why Berger would focus solely on the millennium-plot report. But it is clear that the report has been the object of intense discussions during the September 11 investigation.
The report was the result of a review done by Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, of efforts by the Clinton administration to stop terrorist plots at the turn of the year 2000.*
*The after-action review of the millennium celebration conflicts with Berger’s testimony before the 9-11 commission, prompting some Republicans to charge Berger stole the documents to protect the Clinton administration.
Berger told the 9-11 panel the administration’s efforts “thwarted” terrorist attacks, but the documents indicate many missed opportunities and an apparent element of luck. *
Please note that I’m making no effort to find the first ever mention of a particular point. Just looking for a mention old enough to reasonably be considered “not new”.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday
Even if we allow credit as “new” something reported 20 days ago, you’re batting average is not so good here, Magellan01
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 and hid them under a construction trailer, the Archives inspector general reported Wednesday
Even if we allow credit as “new” something reported 20 days ago, your batting average is not so good here, Magellan01
I agree, he is guilty as you charged, but innocent of some of the charges floated by **magellan01 ** in the OP. Specifically, that he stole original documents. I don’t see any support for that allegation in the cited report. What difference does it make? Plenty. If he stole only copies, the conspiracy theories about a cover-up of malfeasance in the Clinton administration dry up and blow away. And that is what this OP is about, flogging the Clinton administration yet again in a vain attempt to distract the public from the current implosion in the White House.