Sandy Berger investigated for stealing terror memos

Great Debates
#21

If this shit is so whoopity-whoop super-duper classified, how come he got to make copies in the first place? He gets to read and take notes, how classified can it be? He was going to sell them to the Saudis? Maybe he was seduced and controlled by a cunning Baathist agent, Fatima of the Quivering Thighs?

He’s reviewing stuff related to the time when he was NSA, a sort of short, chunky, white, totally non-hot Condi Rice. What the hell was he gonna see he didn’t already know? Who was he going to fucking tell, that didn’t already know? Maybe more to the point, who could he tell that would fucking care?

What, he’s hiding something maybe? Theres a dark scandal hidden in the National Archives, like Monica L. is an agent for Mossad (Code Name: Hot Lips)? If there was some really hot shit there to burn Bill C. with, it would have been in Fox News hands at fax speed.

Something pretty stupid has happened, but nothing very important has happened. Maybe when the super-duper prosecuter gets done with his exhaustive investigation of the Plame leak, and finds out who framed OJ, he can work on this.

#22

Gotta go with elucidator here; from firsthand experience, I can say that handling classified documents involves some very strict document control. You can’t just pop down to the photocopier in the next room and run a dozen copies, and taking notes of any sort would garner some raised eyebrows.

And ditto what luci said about the Plame leak, too. Priorities, kids.

#23

My guess, based on work at such facilities, was that he was being permitted to make notes and copies to use as working papers. These would have been stored on site, and destroyed when they weren’t needed any more.

They wouldn’t have been permitted to leave the site unless sent by the security manager to another secure site. This would have been via a more secure and accountable shipping method than Sandy Berger’s clothing.

#24

Ya. Two investigations could cripple this great Republic. Better just let the Dem go…

#25

What the hell, luci? Are you implying that Condi Rice is the hot Condi Rice? If so, you’ve got damn odd tastes for a lefty. We might have to take away your membership and discount cards.

#26

Ahhhh, Condi, Condi! Have you forgotten? The warm summer nights above Telegraph Avenue, you reading Soul on Ice out loud while I ran the People’s Revolutionary Communications Cadre mimeo machine. Wafting scent of pachouli and tear gas in the air, the cute way that tooth gap made you pronounce “running dog imperialist jackals of the ruling class”…

She took a couple hits of Blue Cheer, and turned on the TV while Reagan was on, and the next thing I knew…gone.

#27

Yeah, she’s hot! Not as hot as Gwen Ifill, but who is?

#28

Hey- I’m a righty & I fully admit Hillary Clinton is hot, as is Dee Dee Myers.

But along with Condi, we righties have Michelle Malkin, Monica Crowley & Laura Ingraham. We had Arianna Huffington.

OK- we also have Ann Coulter… dammit.

But hey, I’ll see the lefties’s Chelsea Clinton & raise ya the Bush twins!

#29

Condi might be hot if she would smile every once in awhile. And I say might because I’ve never actually seen her smile. She always looks like a pissed off bulldog.

#30

You might be right, but if, in fact, he was stuffing documents into his pants, as reported by Archives employees (and these are just career bureaucrats, not partisan hacks), I’d certainly call that “hiding” something. When was the last time you used your Levis as a briefcase?

#31

Hey, I hide my car keys in my pants. My wallet too, and change. Sounds suspicious, eh?

This same sort of tar brush was used on former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill - that he had purloined top secret documents and was no better than a spy and a traitor.

Strangely, said accusations did not surface until after O’Neill’s book about the Bush White House came out. (Makes me wonder what projects Berger’s been working on lately.)

If Berger can use his knowledge to open a window onto Bush’s failures leading up to 9/11, I say he’s doing all Americans a great service. So he wanted all his facts in order before testifying before the American people? Would that the Bush White House shared that noble value!

In other words, these were not nuclear submarine plans, or a book of codes. They dealt with 9/11, one of the central events of our time, an event that the Bush White House has done everything in their power to obfuscate and delay a full, public account of. (That’s treason.)

I know there are plenty of people who want everyone that ever had anything to do with Clinton to be branded with some sort of scarlet letter and shamed into disgrace and total obscurity, but - get over it!

#32

Hey, I’m basically on your side, but car keys, a wallet, and change all fit into those nifty things called “pockets,” so there’s nothing even remotely unusual about putting them there. But when was the last time you stuffed a file folder into your jockey shorts?

All I’m saying is that the “stuffing documents into his pants” aspect of the story is the one piece that, if accurate, is a little tough to explain away, doncha think?

#33

Okay, okay, lets be fair.

According to this article by the AP, the notes were in his pockets, and the photocopies were in a leather portfolio.

I’m certainly not faulting Berger for looking at the documents, taking notes, and preparing his testimony accordingly.

I am faulting him for removing the documents from appropriate control, and apparantly losing some of them. He can’t account for them, except to claim that they were “discarded”. Can he verify that the documents were destroyed in accordance with procedures appropriate for their classification level? Does he have facilities for such destruction at his home?

These are questions he’ll need to answer to.

#34

Thanks for that link. It does make the whole affair sound less sinister than some of the initial reports I’d seen.

I do agree with you that Berger’s sloppiness is a little troubling, given his background. Someone like that really ought to know better.

#35

The mere fact that the man stuffed papers in his pants warrants attention. I don’t care how partisan you are…you cannot possibly see the furtive stuffing of papers in pants as anything but suspicious.

#36

I’ve been known to stick documents up to four pages thick into a pant pocket, if it has install instructions for something I’ll need offsite on it.

#37

Let’s be gracious and assume you didn’t read Mr. Moto’s AP update.

#38

Your phrasing is implying something different than actually happened. “Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants.” So he put some handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets. Very, very suspicious to be using pockets to carry paper that has ink on it! That’s not what pockets are designed for and warrants attention!

#39

Well, grace should flow in both directions, rjung. I’m being very evenhanded about my accusations here, and not making them wildly. That’s why I haven’t been speculating as to motive.

Your posts, though, have done nothing to address this issue except to minimize Berger’s behavior or deflect blame away from him. I don’t think either action is appropriate here.

Berger, by his own admission, inadequately safeguarded material, and now some of it is lost. If you have the firsthand experience you speak of, you can’t defend this.

#40

To further focus on a minor point, I have always said “Put something in my pocket” if I was going to do so. When I hear the phrase “sticking them in his pants”, it brings to mind the image of Berger placing papers between his pants and his boxers (assuming he’s not a tighty-whitey sort of fellow) in an attempt to keep them from being seen as he walked out. Now, if he “stuck them in his pockets”, it would sound different and less furtive.