Remember Sandy Berger?

• April 1, 2005

You remember Sandy Berger, right? The former national security adviser to the Clinton administration who was caught stealing classified documents from the National Archives? It looks like he’ll be pleading guilty soon.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday.
Berger is expected to appear in federal court in Washington on Friday, said Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra.
The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.
The former Clinton administration official previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives copies of documents about the government’s anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents.
He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
He called the episode “an honest mistake,” and denied criminal wrongdoing.

I’ve always been amazed at how little coverage this story has gotten. Many politicians, for reasons both genuine and partisan, have put an incredible amount of emphasis on finding out what went wrong in our nation’s security measures that allowed 9/11 to happen. The documents Berger stole were directly related to that very topic and yet the media has devoted very little coverage to the story.
For months upon months we heard endless stories about President Bush and his service in the Texas Air National Guard, yet Sandy Berger and his stolen documents were largely forgotten about just weeks after the story broke. Why? Can anyone imagine another scenario other than a blatant cover-up that would prompt Berger to steal documents from the National Archives? And, given that reality, isn’t the idea of a former Presidential administration covering up facts during an investigation into the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil worth of some big-time media coverage?
This thing is like Watergate all over again, yet its barely even registered enough attention to get a cliched “-gate” nickname.
“Honest mistake” my white ass. Berger is taking one for the Clinton team. Those documents pointed to something big. Big enough to convince a former cabinet member that jail time and a heavy fine is an acceptable price to pay for making it all go away.
(via Michelle Malkin)
Update:
Turns out Berger won’t be serving any prison time. He’ll get a fine and a three year suspension of his security clearance.
Not bad for an act tantamount to treason during a time of war.

Tags: General

http://Array LoadTheMule

Aaron, you still don’t get it, do you? *grin*

In the context of the story you read, [sarcasm]controversial simply means, “We the impartial media don’t like the sucker, thus another gratuitous cheap shot.”[/sarcasm]

Reagards…
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_drsanity_archive.html Dr. Sanity: August 2005

&heellip; &heellip;
WOOF

Carrie you’re correct I confused Wolfowitz with that other weasel Elliot Abrams, who was covicted,, now Deputy National Security Advisor.
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/blog/archives/722 Common Sense Junction Â» Blog A

&heellip; UPDATE, August 12 @ 4:30 pm: ‘Say Anything’ “Remember Sandy Berger?” has the answer to Dr. Sanity’s question above and a lot more. Us the link and then scroll to the bottom of the post for a menu of related items. Trackback: http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/blog/archives/722/trackback/ &heellip;
Carrick Talmadge

Woofie says:

Carrie youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re correct…

Carrie??? Woofie’s got jokes!
Aaron

Hm… I don’t know if my eyes were crossed or what, but I totally misread JG comment that I quoted…. you can disregard my last post…

But upon reading the comment correctly, I still think it’s misguided. If Wolf was at all a bad choice, there had to be at least ONE of the 184 panel that would vote no and not ignore concience, no?
Aaron

I read a story yesterday on Wolfowitz calling him the “controversial” pick to head the world bank in the first paragraph. In the third paragraph however, they mention the 184-country panel “unanimously” picked him to head the WB up. If he was so controversial, why did nobody vote against him?
http://www.inthebullpen.com/ Chad Evans

I don’t see this as the media ignoring the story, rather the media was paying attention to a presidential election as they should have been. If this story, which has huge national security implications, would have happened during a non-election year it would have gained more publicity.
Jadegold

Poor Aaron.

The reason no country dissented was they were afraid AWOL George would nominate someone worse—if that’s possible.
Marty

Web Hubbel and Sandy Berger (hey, where’s Vernon Jordan these days) were all solid democrat “team-players”. You know, the kind of guy you can count on to fall on his sword while “napoleon” skates away with all the glory. Thanks for the jail-time boss!
WOOF

Wolfowitz, who was convicted of lying to Congress, has left open the 2nd slot at DOD, Berger now qualifies.
Carrick Talmadge

Woofie says:

Wolfowitz, who was convicted of lying to Congress, has left open the 2nd slot at DOD, Berger now qualifies.

I think you need to check your police work there, Woofie. Wolfowitz has never been convicted of lying to Congress. I expect a retraction, or I’m going to pull a JadeGold the Infantile, and go “liar liar pants on fire!” at you till you slink away in shame.

Speaking of media bias, it is funny listening to how the American media is back-pedalling on their “Europe hates Wolfowitz because …” stories, now that it is finally clear to them that he will be confirmed for the World Bank. Of course this was all predictable for anybody who was reading European support and noticed actual enthusiasm for Wolfowitz among some European leaders.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

It’s amazing how many Clinton associates are in jail, dead by suspicious ways, or death by “suicide” (multiple gunshot wounds to the head is “suicide” when you’re a friend of Clinton). Add one more possible jail sentence to the list. Sandy “Docs in his Socks” Berger might be going there. Or Sandy “Briefs in his Briefs” Berger might luck out and stay out of jail. I guess we’ll see.

For months upon months we heard endless stories about President Bush and his service in the Texas Air National Guard, yet Sandy Berger and his stolen documents were largely forgotten about just weeks after the story broke. Why?

That liberal media that the liberals insist doesn’t exist.
Aaron

What liberal media, likwidshoe? I’m sure if former National Security Advisor Condelezza Rice was found stealing top-secret information regarding 9-11 the media would give her the exact same treatment as Berger… In fact, because she’s a black woman they’d probably resepct her has the first minority of her class to reach such a post and give her a pass, right?

Of course they would….
Aaron

The reason no country dissented was they were afraid AWOL George would nominate someone worseÃ¢â‚¬”if thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s possible.

Yes, I’m sure every single one of these nations was trying to avoid being invaded by giving a vote of confidence for Wolfowitz. That’s why you see absolutlely zero resistance to all US foreign policy decisions of late, right?
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

If it had involved a cabinet member from a Republican administration it would have gained more publicity.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Remember Sandy Berger?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments