Who Can Really Say?

Bergers Tartar

When last we left you, sports fans, sandybergers were on the menu. The only problem was that they were being served in pants and for the life of me I don't know what that means. But more about that later.

Sandy Berger plead guilty today to on two occasions intentionally removing a total of 5 examples (note I didn't use the word "copies") of a classified document from the National Archives. Oh -- and then there's the destroying documents part:

Mr. Berger admits to compounding the mistake after removing the second set of documents on Oct. 2, 2003, the associate said. In comparing the versions at his office later that day, he realized that several were essentially the same, and he cut three copies into small pieces, the associate said. He also admitted to improperly removing handwritten notes he had taken at the Archives, the associate said.

What was that -- a favor? Oh gee, you don't need these extra copies? I know you guys at the Archives must have a space problem so I'm going to help you out? Ahh, but there's the rub. Were they indeed "copies", as in five exactly identical set of papers?

No.

The Post, meanwhile, insists on calling these "copies". They were not exact copies; each memo started off as a copy of an original draft by Richard Clarke, but the memos had handwritten notes from each recipient as comments, requests for revision, and suggestions for possible action. Each document was unique, and their destruction by Mr. Scissors means that we will never know what some did with Clarke's information. All we know is that it must have reflected badly on Berger, Clinton, or both. Otherwise, why would Berger destroy them?

But what about the pants? Jim Geraghty at NRO, quoting the WaPo link above, says pants now seem to be uninvolved.

Although one element of this story apparently is a bit of an urban legend:

On Sept. 2, 2003, the associate said, Berger put a copy of the Clarke report in his suit jacket. He did not put it in his socks or underwear, as was alleged by some Republicans last summer.

But can we reach that conclusion upon reading the entire bit from the Post?

The Berger associate authorized to speak with reporters described the chronology the former national security chief gave to the Justice Department in his negotiations with the Justice Department. On Sept. 2, 2003, the associate said, Berger put a copy of the Clarke report in his suit jacket. He did not put it in his socks or underwear, as was alleged by some Republicans last summer. On Oct. 2, 2003, he again spent hours at the archives and got four more versions of the document. Back in his office, he studied them in detail, realized they were largely identical, and took the scissors to three of the copies, the associate said.

Well, two thoughts. The mystery "associate" (do a CTRL-F on both the WaPo and NYT articles and count how many times you find that word) said Berger stuck the first example in his suit jacket. No word yet from the "associate" on how he got the other four out a one time, or whether men's trousers or hosiery were involved.

Second thought -- what's with the "some Republicans" bit? Back on July 20, 2004, Vodkapundit took the pants bit to a whole new level, and quoted the AP on the pants bit:

And I'm – oh dear Whomever there's no hope for me is there? – thinking about what's inside Sandy Berger's pants:

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.

That's right – the former National Security Advisor to President Clinton stuffed classified information down his pants and walked (a bit oddly, I'd wager) to his car. So that I might not be labeled a partisan hack, let me first say something in Sandy's defense – at least he didn't also have a shredder down there. Because you just know that Fawn Hall could have destroyed top secret documents with a top-secret spy device hidden in her not-so-Top-Secret cotton thong.

Or -- it was the dastardly Republicans. Your pick.

And now, what happens to Sandy? Before we answer the question, let's recap:

So, let me get this straight: Sandy Berger intentionally destroyed the only copies of top secret documents about this country's historical knowledge of looming terrorism threats for clearly political purposes, even though a bipartisan Congressional commission was requesting and utilizing all such documents in an effort to formulate recommendations about how to protect America from another terrorist attack.

Easy -- a $10,000 fine and giving up his security clearance for three years. Or, as some might say, a slap on the wrist.

[UPDATE 4/12/05: This post was updated here.]

Posted by Peter at April 1, 2005 09:43 PM