Well, there’s some of that, which I don’t agree with. But I think there’s a fair amount of “Yeeouch! Dumbass…” among the Kerry supporters as well.
I agree with that Moto: Berger should pretty obviously have had his security clearance yanked if all the allegations are true. Of course, it doesn’t seem to have been yanked yet already, which is odd if all the allegations are true.
I’m not excusing Berger for being an idiot that doesn’t know procedure, but giving someone clearance doesn’t automatically mean they have a working knowledge of handling procedures for secure information. In fact, a lot of government officials, such as Congressman, don’t have to go through the same procedures as a lowly normal citizen to get a clearance and I would assume that a position like National Security Advisor is the same. If these people need clearance, it is given to them whether they would pass the normal screening or not, thus I find it very likely that a lot of them don’t feel a pressing need to actually know all the procedures.
By the way, the reason certain government officials don’t go through the normal screening process is because too many of them would fail to get clearance, particularly because of the credit checks. According to this page, 53 members of Congress would fail a clearance application with the DoD due to credit problems.
This editorial from the Wall Street Journal has good information on all of your points.
I can’t say that disclosure occurred. I don’t know how the documents were lost, or if, when Berger says they were “discarded”, they were destroyed according to procedures for destroying documents of this classification. You don’t just chuck these things into the wastecan.
Did Berger disclose information? No, not directly. Did he risk disclosure through his actions? Certainly, and that’s a crime in and of itself. It’s a security violation.
[QUOTE=Razorsharp]
Clinton let Osama off the hook.
[QUOTE]
Af, as we all know, GW went into Afghanistan after Osama, followed through magnificently and the US arch enemy is now in custody and awaiting trial.
Thus bringing us back to Arnold.
Well, hell, if Limbaugh says he’s guilty, he must be innocent! Case closed! 
Well, then, if this was so bad a policy, George W. had 8 months to reverse it before Sept. 11 occurred. By then there had also been the U.S.S. Cole attack and the one on the embassies in Africa. And, by all believable accounts, Bush actually put less emphasis on the terrorism issue and Bin Laden than Clinton had.
You may be right that the first WTC attack should have raised more warning flags for us. But, the fact is that there is a huge difference between a failed attack and a successful attack in terms of the political climate that it creates. That is why neither president made it a priority to go after Bin Laden although it appears that it was less of a priority for Bush pre-9/11 than it had been for Clinton.
Sorry, but I read the WSJ editorial page religiously for a while and I can safely say that they don’t trade in information. They trade in deception and half-truths. You can read their opinions all you want…But you had better check every “fact” they give you because many of them will be untrue or at least incomplete. (In my experience from issues I knew in detail like climate change and tax issues, I would say my use of “many” here is rather conservative…and I could probably say “most”.) The WSJ news pages are a reputable source of information; the WSJ editorial page is a source of propaganda.
Kos and the CfAP raise a whole lot of salient points that make the leak as well as the more salacious aspects of the story that as of yet have no confirmation look pretty darn suspicious:
Note that the WSJ page was one of the two (NYPost) papers that published the bogus accusations against Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s connection to all sorts of supposedly unamerican groups via the Tides center. And then of course didn’t seriously bother to retract or correct their nasty insinuations and innuendo. Par for the course.
Wait a minute, hold everything! You don’t mean that perfectly ridiculous shit posted in the Pit?
Sadly, my mom now ranks among those naive enough to believe the crap about his socks.
So let’s see here, someone saw him stuffing classified material in his underwear and socks, became an accessory to the crime by not alerting security or the police, but did run out to the lunatic right media with the story months later, provided his/her name wasn’t used. And this despite the fact that even by that account, Berger somehow got documents out in his briefcase, making it rather odd he felt the need to draw attention to papers bulging out of his nether regions. Luckily we have the mighty liberal media to point out the abysmal quality of these lies… Hello? Guys?
Oh, wait, they’re busy putting together a graphic showing how to most efficiently conceal papers in your underwear. Good work people.
Uh, yes. You expected different from the WSJ editorial page (which has a regular feature in which a return to the gold standard is touted as the salvation of humanity) or the NYPost (no examples needed). Michelle Malkin is involved with at least one of them for goodness sakes.
No, it was more like if it were worded like the POS in the Pit. Just seemed as though what I read there was not up to the snotty patrician tone the WSJ seems to admire.
Of course, I could just go look it up myself if I weren’t so lazy and easily…look! Shiny!
Fred Kaplan, who knows a heck of a lot about these matters, weighs in. He seems to think most of the major side issues raised are bullshit: Berger is clearly guilty of violating archive policy whether through arrogance or negligence, but all the other side stories that people like Sam Stone and Moto have tried to spin out (but can’t seem to very plausibly SPELL out) look pretty bullshity, in his estimation.
http://slate.com/id/2104138/
Mickey Kaus, who passiontely hates both Kerry and Berger, can’t seem to find much either to carp about:
http://slate.com/id/2104072/
He also notes that the WSJ is now calling for the release of the drafts, presumably because they want to play the theory that Berger was part of some conspiracy coverup. But he notes how absurd that makes the security concerns look in the first place. This brings us back to the possibility that, while classified, the documents in question may not have contained dangerous material after all, given that the government over the last few admistrations have the habit of over-classifying everything. If the docs (whom everyone knows the general contents of already) can be released publicaly (presumably so that people like the WSJ can point to this or that sentance criticizing the Clintons as evidence of a conspiracy, even though the content of that sentance is no doubt already widely known) it’s not clear that Berger is quite the dangerous criminal as he is the dangerous bufoon.
LOOK! THe Circus is coming to Town!
Speaker Hastert on Congressional Investigation Regarding National Security and Sandy Berger
Hmm…
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004350.php
As Kevin Drum notes, not all breaches of security seem to be alike, even when one was clearly intentional and malicious, and the other is not.
Ya just knew this shit would happen. Great.
Which then makes this shit entirely predictable:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040722/pl_afp/us_vote_attacks_berger&cid=1521&ncid=1963&sid=96378801
and followed by:
I, as an American, am truly and deeply anxiouis to have these questions answered. In what nefarious, and thus far unrevealed, way did the Kerry campaign benefit? In the intervening months between this dastardly act of potential possibility, how has the Kerry campaign applied these crucial pieces of data? Clearly, they have kept the matter closely under a cloak of clandestine skullduggery because no one apparently knows to what treasonous purpose these documents have been utilized. The campaign of slander against Bush was so subtle, no one even knew it had happened! Now, that’s devious! That’s cunning!
Dare I say “treasonous”? Well, no one knows! Maybe! Could be! Some of those documents were less than three years old! A treasure trove of up to the decade information. (Excuse while I turn down the TV, some maroon is trying to distract me with some drivel about “missed opportunities” to thwart the 9/11 disaster…really, I can be bothered which such extraneous trivia…where was I? Oh, right!) Some people are saying that there could have been any number of clandestine meetings with Arkansas State troopers, who were known to be in the country at this time…
Hmm… looks like the socks thing was heavily bolstered by Fox spin: when they originally wrote up the story, they claimed that it was Berger and his lawyer that said outright that he had stuffed things in his socks. Except, they never said that. So far, the only source on that is an anonymous source quoting ANOTHER anonymous source. However, their original misreport, so far never corrected to my knowledge, helped the socks thing spread much faster and gave it more initial credibility.
Interesting nugget of information:
From the former Calpundit, now
(I assume this is not too extensive a quote? Advise and abuse if mistaken.)