Sandy Berger to plead guilty on document stealing charge.

Wouldn’t it be enough to say that Berger broke the law, a law he was well aware of as National Security advisor? Also that removing and destroying the documents by unauthorized means risked the disclosure of their contents, which were highly classified. Finally, that doing so was a political embarassment for the Kerry campaign, which Berger served as an advisor.

There are things that can be measured on their own merits, you know.

If so, I guess I don’t understand the point of linking it to the Kerry campaign.

Why stop at the Clinton admin?
Surely you’re not so naive to think that politicians GWB has assembled are some extraordinary breed of honest politicians do you? If you do, I’d be happy to lead you to the water of enlightenment about the fellas. Drinking’s your own business.

The us v them in these instances will ALWAYS be the electorate v the pols. To forget this is to fall asleep on watch, to fail to keep up the eternal vigilance necessary to secure our Liberty.
So don’t come around me pretending that it’s just teh other guys that’re suxx0rs.

Not this again. For the 3,000th time, there are no original documents missing. Berger received only copies, so even if they are missing, there is no basis to suggest a cover-up. All the originals are still in the possession of the Archives; no missing originals, no cover-up. Clear?

So let’s summarize:

When Sandy Berger shreds a couple copies of documents, but leaves the originals in place, with at worst the intention of preventing information about the Clinton Administration’s response to terrorism from coming to light, that’s a horrible, unforgivable offense.

When George W. Bush and other Republicans work tirelessly for months to prevent any investigation whatsoever into the failure of American intelligence before 9/11, that’s perfectly ok.

As usual, one standard for the Republicans and a different standard for everyone else.

But let me just ask this. Suppose Bush had successfully derailed the investigation into the intelligence failure that led to 9/11. Then this entire incident with Berger would never have happened, right?

My understanding is that the documents in question were not exactly copies - they were copies upon which other officials had scrawled handwritten notes, comments, criticisms, or whatever. We will not know what was on them, because the comments in the margins were original and no copy of those exist after the Berger scissors treatment.

Given that he went to the trouble and significant risk of seeking out those particular copies, hiding them on his person, then destroying them, I think it’s reasonable to assume that those particular documents contained information damning to either himself or the Clinton administration.

Given that those documents pertain to the national security of the United States, I’m having a hard time understanding why people are reacting to this with a shrug. It seems that at the very least someone might try to mount an effort to find out what was on those particular documents.

And I find it a strange defense to say, “Oh yeah? Well Bush is worse!”. Whether the Republicans are as bad or worse is as irrelevant as saying that what Ken Lay did is no big deal because other CEOs have been busted for dealing coke.

Cite? And let’s hope you can find something better than another of the blogs that define your worldview. That’s been in none of the “liberal media” that I’m aware of. You do realize that your dudgeon, and your imagined motivations for Berger, rests only upon that supposition.

You must know better than that. We’ve had the hypocrisy discussion here many, many times.

So, Moto, do you think that Berger should be prevented from holding a position that involves classified info again because of what he has done?

I think anyone who considers him for a job ought to remember this incident, yes.

In any case, his access has been pulled for three years. He’s fortunate that the penalty here was so limited.

None of this matters Mr. Moto. It’s all about how Bush is evil. Didn’t you get the memo?

I must admit, this is the first I’ve heard also of these supposed scribblings in the margins. If these notes existed only on the copies that were destroyed, how do we know they existed in the first place? I can’t find any reference to them. The only improperly-handled handwritten material I’ve read of (the usual sources, NYT, CNN, various other links via Google news) refer to Berger’s own jottings made while doing the research.

All the same, Berger clearly lied to investigators and deliberately destroyed some of the documents, making him look distinctly more suspicious than the exhausted goofball he originally tried to portray himself as. Why the hell did he do that?

And not allow him to hold a position where he acesses classified national security info? Or remember that he di this and let him have access to the stuff anyway?

What about you duff? Should Berger be prevented from holding a position that involves classified info again because of what he has done?

Flailing conjecture. The notes he looked at were copies, but maybe he was looking at his own copy of the notes, with notes he scribbled in the margins. Maybe then he hands the notes over to an archivist and later thinks to himself…


The Vince Foster murder plans! I doodled them in the margins of those notes! Oh, my Dark Lord! If that gets out, Mistress Hillary won’t punish me! Ever again!

OK but still…maybe the marginal notes were simply personally embarassing, comments off the cuff “How the Hell does this guy rate so much class-A nookie. What has he got, besides Air Force One…”

So maybe he figures, heck, they’re my notes, really. They’ve got copies, only thing different is the part thats me. Any real reason I can’t keep that private? Who’s gonna care?..

Unless someone can give me a plausible wherein his actions have some sort of serious ramifications, like dead people, if it please the Court I would like to file a Motion to Fuhgeddaboutit.

As to the notion that he was “fortunate” to be treated lieniently, again, for what? If my kid TP’s my neighbors house, that’s technically malicious mischief. If he TP’s my Jewish neighbors house in a swastika motive, thats malicious mischeif, and a whole nother thing.

If the intent of his felonious absquatulation (hey!..not a bandname) is nothing more than minor personal or political embarassment, this case could be settled by Judge Judy.

(On the other hand, if I take the hard line on this, maybe that means Sam and Moto will feel bound to insist on Bob Novak being drawn and quartered over the Valerie Plame thing…)

Once again, it is “Ideology Uber Alles” on this subject and all the others. It’s almost pointless to read the GD boards anymore because you know what the players are going to say. If Berger had an ® instead of a (D) after his name, the same people that are defending and excusing him would be calling for his head.

Would I be excusing him, you ask? No. I would call him a dumbass and be shocked that the penalty was so light.

The top national security aid to a President steals classified documents. Of those that were stolen, over half were never returned, and we have to trust his word that he shredded them with a pair of scissors. Yes, trust his word. From the same man whom said it was all just an “honest mistake.” Then says he did it intentionally.

Would you honestly fell comfortable giving future access to classified documents to him?

Let me turn the tables (somewhat). Would you support G. Gordon Liddy’s access to classified documents?

It doesn’t really matter, since this already headed to a pit thread about Bush. What’s the point of even debating it?

Yeah, I just forgot. I’ll put the new cover sheets on the TPS reports before they go out.

No, I prefer that he never have access to such again.
How about you? Do you think Berger should be prevented from holding a position that involves classified info again because of what he has done?

Turning tables? Or merely a non sequitur? But, no, I don’t think that fella (despite how much I liked to listen to his show years back) needs acess to such stuff.

Second time you’ve asked that. If you couldn’t discern my anyswer in the response to the first time, what’s the point.

Pad your count with someone else. I’d have a better dialogue with one of my dogs.

I thought your answer was evasive. Why else use a paragraph w/o a yes or a no to answer a yes or no question?

Proceed at you discretion. What’re their usernames?