 |
| Sandy Berger and his Boxer Rebellion The long and the shorts of it |
Editors Note: As United States Representative Casey Weldon begins to ferret out another facet of the glittering jewel that is the Clinton legacy, we are again reminded of perpetual Donkey Sandy Berger's little foray into the National Archives, from which he made a substantial and substantially illegal withdrawal. Could it be that some of the absconded documents pertained to the Clinton Administration's pronounced disinterest in seriously addressing terrorism and terrorists? Perhaps someone should ask him.
|
In October of 2003, former Clinton National Security Adviser, and now former Kerry Campaign adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger surreptitiously left the National Archives with top secret security documents by placing them in, amongst other places, his socks and pants. All of these paper placements were dismissed by Berger as an “honest mistake”, one that he “deeply regret(ted)”. One assumes he even more deeply regretted that he “accidentally” threw away several of the most crucial of the missing documents, a fact that did not become widely known until after the FBI searched his house and offices for them. I know I often accidentally, not to mention “honest”ly, leave places with papers ported in my wear. Only this morning I arrived at work to find I had my car insurance forms in my boxers, and my birth certificate in my right shoe. Thankfully, national security was not breached, so I did not feel compelled to turn myself in to the appropriate authorities. I am not, however, a former National Security Adviser, with the attending access to stocking stuffers of the utmost import. When Berger's boots are filled for walking, and their contents go missing, serious repercussions can occur. And that appears to be just what has happened here.
The discarded documents were part of Richard Clarke (yes, the former National Security Council aide and recent Bush basher, that Richard Clarke)’s 1999 assessment of Al-Qaeda’s attempts to strike US millennium celebrations, and contained therein were dozens of recommendations for improving our efforts to quell such attacks in the future. These missing memorandum would have gone a long way towards settling the ongoing debate of whether the Clinton or Bush administrations had done more to combat terrorism. Now, of course, we will never know. Of course, now that all of this has come to light, the 9/11 Commission has suddenly shifted the blame for the attacks from either administration (read: Bush's) to Congress. Given Berger's zealousness with regard to their disappearance and disposal, one can guess to which side of the 2000 election the documents cast these aspersions. But inter-Administration squabbles are of little consequence when compared to the grander aspects of what has transpired with these archives.
What Sandy Berger stole (let us end the muddling of this, shall we) must have been colossally damaging to the Clinton legacy, extraordinarily beneficial to the Kerry campaign, or (more than likely) both. And Berger was formerly under the employ of one and on loan to the other, so his making them disappear worked backwards and forwards. What did these documents reveal about the more sully aspects of the Clinton legacy? How much of the Kerry campaign’s tack on terrorism these last six months has been determined by access to them? Berger could tell us, but it appears that no one is rushing to ask him.
What we are subjected to, instead, is Tom Daschle, Bill Clinton and David Gergen proselytizing about the “interesting timing” (Clinton’s words) of the revelation (just before the release of the 9/11 Commission report), and how it is this aspect that is of far greater import than the antics of Berger the Burglar. The obs-elite (obsolete) media, of course, comes to heel, and the story dies. Let us hope that the fate of the missing missives is as innocuous as Berger’s “accidental” trash toss. There are many more dangerous places in which they could end up, in hands far more perilous than those of the garbage man. If only there was a national journalist around to pursue this; but then, where does wishful thinking get us. We all rolled our eyes during the 1992 campaign when MTV asked then candidate Clinton whether he preferred "boxers or briefs?" At the time Clinton demurred, but the music channel turned out to be quite prescient. The answer to that seemingly inane question turned out to be fundamental Administration policy. Clearly Clinton dictated boxers for all administration officials; after all, with how many classified documents can one abscond in briefs? Copyright July 23rd, 2004, by Seton Motley, LessGovernment.org, All Rights Reserved |
| Comments |
I believe that if we knew what Berger stole from the archives, it would prove to be classified and/or proof of treason on the part of the Clinton Administration - if not, why will he not reveal what it was he took ? Frances Shannon |