106 Comments

1. Knucklehead:

Hmmm… So now we have two news outlets giving us the “socks” stuffing. Perhaps AP was “saving space” and network traffic with their version. Somebody on the previous thread caught that it might be AP “removing” rather than Fox “adding”. Good catch!

Talk about a story looking like its got legs right up to its neck! This one should be fun to watch wind its way through the system. I wonder if the DNC’s attempt to pull everybody back to worrying about National Guard records from 30+ years ago will make it through even one meme cycle.

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:31 pm 2. chuck:

Oh,yes: “Socks ate the documents.” Waiting for an Oliphant cartoon here.

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:47 pm 3. Knucklehead:

I avoid the talking heads programs for the most part so I cannot make a judgement about this, so I need some advice. Which will be the most comical when it comes to discussing this story?

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:47 pm 4. Fausta:

socks as well as other parts of his clothing

Can’t wait for full disclosure!

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:49 pm 5. someone:

I like Mark Steyn’s summary of recent events:

The Kerry Team:

Joe Wilson – LIAR!

Max Cleland – “LIAR!” LIAR!

Sandy Berger – PANTS ON FIRE!

Heh heh.

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:54 pm 6. Morgan:

Knucklehead -

If you mean “intentionally funny”, then Dennis Miller is your best bet, unless he treats it like a serious story.

By the way, did anyone notice that the “Ads by Google” are advertising socks?

Keep an eye on those ads, I think they’ll provide some insights.

Jul 20, 2004 - 12:56 pm 7. Knucklehead:

Morgan,

No, I didn’t mean intentionally comical, but Miller is a good suggestion for intentionally comical. The late night guys might have some fun with this – but that’s past my bedtime.

Jul 20, 2004 - 1:11 pm 8. spongeworthy:

Now it’s being suggested that Berger swiped draft documents of the final reports. If somebody could figure out in what fashion the drafts differed from the final reports, you’d have a pretty good idea of why he swiped them.

Jul 20, 2004 - 1:12 pm 9. RogerA:

Lemme get this straight–CNN is saying that Berger stuffed documents into his socks and other parts of his clothing–hmmm–we have pants ID’d and socks–what else is left as in “other parts of his clothings.” Somehow a size 46 thong seems a bit grotesque.

Jul 20, 2004 - 1:36 pm 10. chuck:

It *is* totally bizarre, no? I remember having the same feeling at the beginning of Monicagate. “You mean the president was getting blow jobs from an intern? No way! Why? That’s totally bizarre”

Jul 20, 2004 - 1:56 pm 11. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

“Newsmax is a partisan source”

True. Care to name one that isn’t?

Folks… watch it with the imagery – I just had lunch!

Overall, this could be real interesting. And Berger may find himself in jail for quite a while.

Gary Aldrich said that the Clinton staff treated security as an unnecessary annoyance. It sounds like Sandy Berger was part of that.

One thing about it, establishing intent isn’t going to be hard. I don’t think Geragos can argue that putting classified documents in pants and socks is some sort accident. Furthermore, there’s the very interesting question of motive. What was he trying to hide? I hope we find out.

This should also prove a unit impulse function test for the MSM. We can see how they handle this, compared to how it would be handled if it were a Republican stealing the nation’s highly classified secrets.

Jul 20, 2004 - 1:59 pm 12. Kevin P:

Roger:

Berger and Lanny can end the sockgate controversy right now. He can have Sandy get in front of a camera and describe the note stuffing technique he used and just where and how he stored the documents.Although I am a bit curious on why he can’t remember whether he wore socks that day.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:01 pm 13. TedM:

Berger steps down as informal advisor to Kerry campaign.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:02 pm 14. Ann:

Hold on a second, though…

What possible evidence could law enforcement have for the socks?

They could have film of the top-secret document room, but I doubt they do, and doubt they’d talk about it if they did.

They could have a confession. Yeah, right.

Or, when the searched his home they found the documents or traces of them in his socks. I don’t buy that one either.

I just find it very hard to believe that anyone could have evidence of this, even if he did do it.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:04 pm 15. MattJ:

Oops: Kerry’s campaign is already distancing itself from Berger. Handlers are emphasizing that the former national security bigwig was just “an informal adviser,” not a paid official with the campaign.

Informal… right.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:05 pm 16. TedM:

Chris Lehane, one of the more despicable creatures is on Fox explaining how it is all Ashcrofts fault.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:07 pm 17. chuck:

The timing is interesting, though. After all these months, why now. Monday, a convention coming up… Not saying this stuff isn’t true, just trying to figure out the strategy in the way these political card games are played. Hope Samuel weighs in at some point.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:10 pm 18. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

A republican spokesperson on Fox claimed that Berger was looking at and stealing the information just before he became a Kerry advisor, and that Kerry started attacking security gaps that were described in those documents.

Hmmmm…..

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:11 pm 19. TedM:

Chuck, In the game of leaks which you seem to allude to, would it not have been a good move for the Kerry team to have leaked this weeks ago.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:12 pm 20. Kevin P:

Roger:

In regards to the story of Kerry distancing himself from Berger are you sure that they said “informal” advisor or “inadvertent”.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:12 pm 21. Sandy P:

You want to have some real fun??? (God, I love the internet!)

Via Vodkapundit:

I’m Almost Like a Journalist Today

I have been cleared to reveal the following info. I’m not allowed to say where I got it.

I have a reader who is involved with the government’s efforts to fight terror, and he has connections who tell him the big suspicion is that Berger took things he thought would help Kerry in the Presidential campaign. Also, the grapevine says not all of the documents taken were copies. Furthermore, I am told that an FBI agent described Berger as “a total asshole” who is not as cooperative as he claims.

Also, I am told that an effort is being made–either by the press or the Kerry/Berger camp; it’s not very clear–to mount a sound bite campaign to put the matter to rest. The idea is to make it look like sloppiness, because the truth is that it was deliberate. And I am told that this scandal is much more serious than we have heard so far.

Supposedly, Berger may have absconded with documents containing information on our efforts to keep our ports and airports safe. Let me remind you, one of our biggest fears is that a nuclear weapon will be smuggled in on a ship and detonated in a harbor. Such as New York Harbor. It’s my understanding that we use certain types of technology to try to detect radioactive materials in ships and vehicles. All we need is for terrorists to find out what the technology is and how to beat it.

Worse, the documents may reveal areas in which we are still vulnerable. They may be a roadmap for terrorists.

Finally, I am told that Fox’s version of the story, while not quite right, is closest to the truth.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:15 pm 22. Ben:

This is a gut check for the MSM — Let’s see if they are capable of treating this as a serious matter. Also, they should be asking questions about whether this is a cover-up for failings in the Clinton Administration or whether it is an attempt to benefit the Kerry Campaign. If the MSM does not ask these questions, they will have conclusively answered the question about media bias.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:24 pm 23. Sandy P:

OOPS!

Not Vodkapundit – ASV

Site is littletinylies.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:27 pm 24. Mark Poling:

“The game of leaks” isn’t as interesting as the apparent uselessness of the Kerry vetting machine. First Joe Wilson implodes. Now we get Sandy Berger’s bizarre behavior.

Is anyone really comfortable that Kerry seems to have been blindsided by both?

It’s going to be hard for the media to ignore these incidents for much longer. In Wilson’s case because he’s burned every bridge he’s ever crossed, and the MSM needs a scapegoat now that the Senate Intelligence Report is out. In Berger’s case because he’s admitted to committing a frickin’ felony.

As to Berger’s “informal” status:

May 28, 2004

LA Times

by Michael Finnegan

Seattle, WA

In the first of a series of foreign policy speeches, the Democrat highlights need to rebuild alliances and to reduce the reliance on foreign oil.

Democratic presidential hopeful John F. Kerry on Thursday began outlining his strategy for protecting the nation from terrorist attacks, saying President Bush had “made America less safe than we should be in a dangerous world.”

[snip...]

In a conference call with reporters before the speech, Kerry foreign policy advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger said those remarks were not meant to embrace Bush’s doctrine of launching preemptive attacks against states the U.S. views as a threat.

Berger, who was President Clinton’s national security advisor, said there was “a profound difference between elevating preemption to a defining strategic doctrine,” as Bush has, and “recognizing that no president is going to stand by, if he sees an immediate threat to the United States, and not take action.”

Not a good week for JFK 1.8(beta).

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:30 pm 25. DennisThePeasant:

CNN is now reporting that Berger was wearing a blue dress from the Gap under his suit on the day in question.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:30 pm 26. TedM:

Mark,

Bergers lawyer was just on. He admits to nothing. Innocent mistake.

(It is fun to be on the offensive for a change, but let’s not get ourselves too deep in this one.)

Every hour spent on this tonight and tomorrow is that much less time for the 1001 cuts.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:33 pm 27. Knucklehead:

Ann,

“What possible evidence could law enforcement have for the socks?”

There is some talk of “witnesses”. If a person or people saw Berger stuffing his socks…

If this is, as Sandy suggests, a filthy, vile effort on the part of Mr. Berger to help the Kerry campaign via stolen classified material – gee, Whitwater anyone? Uh oh… anyone else catch a possible wiff of “The Toricelli Option”? I could swear I smelled something sickening just waft by.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:37 pm 28. Knucklehead:

BTW, “The Toricelli Option” would, possibly, answer the “why now” question. So, who would most want to unhook Mr. Kerry from his “apparent nominee” status?

BTW2, I don’t know if the “steal docs for Kerry campaign” twist holds water. Wasn’t Edwards on the Intelligence Committee and wouldn’t any number of people on the 9/11 committee have sufficient access and motive to feed the Kerry campaign some Homeland Security preparedness talking points?

BTW3, this all leaves me right back where Jerry said I should be a few hours ago. I’ll just wait and see how it plays out. All this conspiracy theorizing makes me feel way too moonbatish.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:47 pm 29. Mark Poling:

AP: Berger Steps Down As Kerry Adviser

WASHINGTON (AP) – Former national security adviser Sandy Berger, the subject of a criminal investigation over the disappearance of terrorism documents, stepped aside on Tuesday as an informal adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

[snip...]

Berger’s home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after the former Clinton adviser voluntarily returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents.

However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al-Qaida terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers told The Associated Press.

Emphasis added.

The AP is spinning this as hard as they can, but it doesn’t matter if Berger voluntarily returned the documents or not; if he removed them (and of course the ones inadvertantly destroyed) he committed a felony, as I understand the law. (Anyone with a security background here who wants to correct me, please do so.)

By the way, how does one step down from an informal position?

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:48 pm 30. chuck:

Sandy P :

I don’t think “inadvertent” is going to go anywhere. It’s just going to grow the hole until it swallows the whole compaign. And no, I don’t expect Sandy to take a bullet for Kerry. I think at lot of folks at the Kerry campaign are just in it for the chance of power. Should be fun to watch.

TedM :

I have no idea how these things work. Nor do I think all the political strategist really know what they are doing. But I am convinced there are strategies.

p.s. What’s that saying about the winner being the side that makes the fewest mistakes.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:50 pm 31. Sandy P:

Since I’m a Watergate baby, I’m going to indulge myself.

This was in 10/03. Was Cabana Boy the presumptive nominee or barely a blip?

How did Berger know Kerry was going to be the nominee back then?

Was Berger just holding on to these docs to become an advisor and hope for a possible admin appointment to whoever the nominee would have been?

Is the DNC involved and Kerry got the luck of the draw????

Or are they going to say Berger was a lone wolf and hang him out to dry?

If Kerry is elected, is this the dems’ Watergate? And why don’t I think Kerry wouldn’t step down for the good of the party and country?

Roger, with what’s going on in the country, there’s not 1 book, there’s a lifetime series.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:50 pm 32. Kevin P:

Roger:

Since we have entered the realm of rampant speculation hows this. Remember when Josh Marshall predicted a explosive story for July 17th. And he wasn’t talking about this one.Maybe what Berger took out of the secured room in his pants,jacket, socks or whatever , was going to be the basis of JM’s watergate moment. Just letting my imagination run wild!

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:55 pm 33. Roberts:

Sandy, you are right that the timing is a bit early as that was in the middle of the YeeaaaaahDEAN! period.

But perhaps Berger wasn’t picky about Dem nominees.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:56 pm 34. Syl:

I’m with Knucklehead on this one. Though I’m having a lot of fun speculating in my head.

However it seems clear to me that Sandy Berger only weighs 135 pounds. He just wears big pants. Now we know why.

Jul 20, 2004 - 2:59 pm 35. ambisinistral:

Socks!?

You mean to say Clinton’s cat was involved in this too?

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:05 pm 36. Clio:

Interestingly, we are all speculating that Sandy acted of his own volition and in his own interest. But what if he was protecting someone else? Is he loyal enough to do something like that? Anyone??

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:14 pm 37. Old Dad:

Fox is now reporting that Berger took docs on more than one occasion.

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:19 pm 38. RogerA:

Clio–I have absolutely NO idea, but do recall President Truman’s saying that if you want loyalty in Washington, get a dog. (at least I think it was HST)

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:20 pm 39. Howard:

This is probably more Right Wing crapola. There are some perfectly legit reasons for his actions posted HERE

The most plausible to me is: He was sure that John Kerry should know about a group called al Qaeda before Bush surprised him in the debates

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:24 pm 40. Knucklehead:

Sandy,

“Was Berger just holding on to these docs to become an advisor and hope for a possible admin appointment to whoever the nominee would have been?”

What if Berger is a willing sacrifice? What if he was not “hoping for a… whoever the nominee…” but was tasked with bringing a Watergate moment to whomever the nominee might turn out to be? There are some examples of friends of a recent president and/or a certain close associate of same who have been fully willing to fall on their sword. Do the names Hubbell and MacDougal ring any bells?

But to get back to important matters like retaining my sanity in a world gone moonbat I’ll just wait a while longer and see what plays out. The convention is only a week or so away.

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:29 pm 41. Syl:

Or maybe he’s just gathering material for a book.

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:57 pm 42. Bostonian:

Ann:

About the socks, an employee of the archives claims to have seen that: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/index.html

(An earlier version of this CNN story said that one of Berger’s *staffers* said that he had admitted to putting documents in his socks. That’s been changed already.)

Jul 20, 2004 - 3:59 pm 43. DennisThePeasant:

Syl-

Preposterous! In the age of Joe Wilson, I have a hard time believing Berger would go to the trouble to actually read/copy/steal documents. Hell, just make it up as you go along. There will always be Josh Marshall to defend you.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:02 pm 44. geoffg:

MORE: On reflection this seems almost so bizarre as to strain credibility…

And credulity as well. B^)

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:02 pm 45. Knucklehead:

The archive employee says he put “something” in his socks. Let’s give Berger benefit of some doubt here – he does have feet, doesn’t he?

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:02 pm 46. Rick Ballard:

OT – again – Ali of ITM – does a great fisking of “Not in Our Name”. These guys should have “Gilette” stamped on them.

Iraq has a future – these guys are part of it.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:08 pm 47. D Anghelone:

Syl: “Or maybe he’s just gathering material for a book.”

And books have footnotes. You’re on to something.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:11 pm 48. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

When I held military clearances, I was told that security violations would get you in big trouble.

I had a “com bag” that had CONFIDENTIAL (lowest security level) material in it, and just before I was to get out I discovered that I had accidently swapped it with another radio operator, who was away on a lengthy trip. Everything classified is numbered, so if I had to turn in my com bag, I was going to be boiled in oil. Fortunately the other guy (who was also an ONI undercover agent, but nobody but I knew that) showed up in time and we swapped bags back.

When I had a civilian SECRET, nobody ever briefed me on it. However, from my military training, I knew it was serious.

Here is information about higher classifications:

TOP SECRET: Applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.In addition to the above, some classified information is so sensitive that even the extra protection measures applied to Top Secret information are not sufficient. This information is known as “Sensitive Compartmented Information” (SCI) or Special Access Programs (SAP), and one needs special “SCI Access” or SAP approval to be given access to this information.

TOP SECRET is the phrase I am hearing about the information. Loss of TOP SECRET information is very serious.

I assume this is felonious behavior, especially since some of the material was “inadvertently destroyed.”

Fox is reporting that Berger took classified out more than once, but Berger says it was inadvertent – but he comes from the “definition of is is” administration.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:12 pm 49. RogerA:

OK–step away from this thread–put your hands on the roof and spread ‘em–this is the pun police and you are all busted! get those socks off, too.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:13 pm 50. Fresh Air:

The big question is: Why did Berger need the documents?

He knew they were copies, right? So he knew he couldn’t prevent anyone from seeing them. Logically, he must have wanted them either for his personal use or for someone else’s use.

Someone mentioned perhaps he was writing a book. Wrong–that is what got O’Neill in trouble. I think that leaves two likely possibilities:

(1) He needed them to defend himself. Unlikely, given that he has not really been accused of anything, and the Commission seemed to have given him fairly soft treatment on the stand.

(2) He was providing them to someone else who could make use of them. Is it not plausible that his notes could have been passed to the Kerry campaign? Yes, but what possible use would documents highlighting what Clinton did re the Millenium Plot be to Kerry? This is an unsatisfying answer.

Could Berger have obtained them for someone else who was writing a book, like, say, Bill Clinton? Just to maybe refresh his memory and keep him from looking like a fool if his account was later shown not to match the official report? This makes more sense.

But there is a also third possibility: the content of the documents is not what has been reported. If so, it would be much more likely the Kerry folks would take a keen enough interest in them to foolishly endanger their new “adviser.”

Just thinking out lot…and chuckling to myself.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:47 pm 51. PeterUK:

Has anyone contemplated that, since some of the documents are missing, Berger had a shredder down his shorts?

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:49 pm 52. Fresh Air:

thinking out loud. Sheesh!

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:49 pm 53. richard mcenroe:

Okay, Wilson crashed and burned.

Berger crashed and burned.

Now how do we start the rumor about Theresa and the conflict diamonds?

OK, OK, how about a mouse in the ketchup bottle then? Spoilsports.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:52 pm 54. richard mcenroe:

Waitaminnit? Newsmax is partisan?! Since when?

Yeah, I know… but they have a habit of being early on stories that turn out to be significant. Just don’t buy the sea silver supplements or tax advice advertised there…

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:53 pm 55. Kevin P:

Roger:

I caught the tail end of a Lanny Davis- Joe DiGenova face off. Joe stated that Berger was in the archives 3 times and 0n 2 of the occasion he accidently removed classified documents.Lanny did not dispute this charge so I think it might be true.One time a mistake, possible.Two times starts to sound intentional.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:53 pm 56. chuck:

Oh Lord. A little information is so much fun among friends. Dangerous, too, they say, but I can handle it. All I have to do is turn off the computer and head home. Any minute now, really…

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:56 pm 57. Tano:

Well, I just saw Joe Wilson in a mini-debate with Sen. Kit Bond (of the intel committee) on the NewsHour. Seems to me that JW aquitted himself quite well. I remain to be convinced that any of the outlandish charges raised against him have any substance.

On the issue of his wife – it seems that the truth of the situation is shaking out. CIA felt a need to check out the rumors and were discussing how to do it. Sending someone was raised as an option. Plame mentioned, or reminded folks, of her husband’s creds. She wrote it up and passed it along. All the consideration and decisions were done above her head. Was JW sent on her recommendation? That seems quite a strech. Did she have nothing to do with it at all? Thats a bit of a strech in the other direction. Seems both sides have been emphasizing and slightly exagerrating the same basic true story.

As to the famous meeting. Once again the actual timeline is quite revealing. Niger-ian businessman says to Niger-ian minister that Iraqi minister wants meeting. Niger-ian minister then presumes that it must be about uranium. Thats it. Thats the sum total of the uranium connection. The meeting actually did take place and uranium was not mentioned! How anyone can claim that this is consistent with Iraq making efforts to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa is beyond me.

Intel committee reports that CIA analysts thought Wilson’s report actually bolstered the story, not refuted it, as Wilson felt. Even if this is true, how would Wilson necessarily know that? He could very well have concluded that his findings debunked the story – but others, later, interpreted it differently. And of course, these CIA types only expressed this feeling to the commision (i.e. now, long after the whole story is out). Could well be a little CYA – especially since the CIA later was getting the phrase struck from several of the presidents pre-SOTU speeches.

ANd then of course there is the fact that the WH itself admitted that the words should not have been in the speech. What more would anyone want?

Finally, Sen. Bond was asked directly – (paraphrase) – you and two other Republicans signed the side-finding that questioned JW’s credibility. On what do you base that?

His repsonse (paraphrase once again) – that JW claimed that Bush lied whereas the CIA had actally approved the SOTU speech.

Me says, huh? Maybe Bond just flubbed the question, but the fact that the CIA approved the speech has been well known since long before the commission began its work. It seems that Bond at least, or at least by his words tonite, had no basis to question JW’s credibility in terms of the work of the Intel committee.

What am I missing here?

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:57 pm 58. Rick Ballard:

FA,

thinking out loud. Sheesh!

The opposition would pay good money for that ability – enjoyable to share in it too.

Jul 20, 2004 - 4:59 pm 59. Rick Ballard:

My dear Tano,

What am I missing here?

The ability to ratiocinate?

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:04 pm 60. Katherine:

Rick, some of the opposition may consider thinking, out loud or otherwise, to be a dangerous pastime.

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:07 pm 61. marek:

Tano,

“What am I missing here?”

To say it very gently – everything

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:10 pm 62. Bravo Romeo Delta:

RogerA

writes:

… but do recall President Truman’s saying that if you want loyalty in Washington, get a dog. (at least I think it was HST)

It was HST, and he said that if you want a friend in Washington, to get a dog.

John Moore

writes about his experiences in the military w/r/t classified materials. The handling of such material at State is radically different. Given Berger’s background, I think he thought he was playing by State rules. Which act a heck of a lot more like guidelines. At any rate, wrote about it. Read if you like.

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:12 pm 63. Rick Ballard:

Katherine,

Danger can only pertain to to something that one has experienced or can imagine. No problem there.

PS Since your Ronstadt post I keep thinking of Solzenitzen. I’m pretty sure that he wouldn’t be a Bush supporter but I truly admire him – honest men have very sharp edges.

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:14 pm 64. TmjUtah:

Tano -

“ANd (sic) then of course there is the fact that the WH itself admitted that the words should not have been in the speech.”

Hmmm.

I missed that. Go ahead and post the cite for whenever the Whitehouse declined to stand by the Sixteen Words.

I’m off to a hockey game. You should have tons of time to find one. If one existed.

Ta.

BTW, saw Lannie Davis on CNBC, Chris Lehane on CNN. Both of them looking like they’ve been dragged back to 1998…and neither one liking it one bit. Lannie Davis just smiled and repeated talking points. Lehane…woof. Another level of ‘uh-oh’ entirely. Last thing I saw on TV was a liveshot from FOX, Berman giving his statement.

He looked like a guy who has just spent a bad hour with a lawyer. A very bad hour.

“Well Sam…I don’t know if this ‘I’m a sloppy moron’ defense is going to work for us….”

Cheers. Let’s see what legs this thing grows, shall we?

I think the term people were looking for was PUnK’d, re Mobey. Wilfull sabotage of forums and such.

Off.

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:29 pm 65. Rick Ballard:

BRD,

Berger was a member of the most Dionysian administration that the US has ever endured. His actions must be viewed under that lens. Ms. Rice is properly addressed as Dr. Rice. Sandy the Burglar is properly addressed as “Bubbabuddy” or “JohnJohn flack”. State department rules or no, he’s better a part of our past than our future.

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:33 pm 66. Charlie (Colorado):

“Well, I just saw Joe Wilson in a mini-debate with Sen. Kit Bond (of the intel committee) on the NewsHour. Seems to me that JW aquitted himself quite well. I remain to be convinced that any of the outlandish charges raised against him have any substance.”

Jesus, Tano, are you delusional? Drunk? Drugged? Hypnotised?

You don’t need to believe anything anyone else said: Wilson has explicitly contradicted himself on several occasions … not to mention the maneuvers around “didn’t recommend” vs “didn’t make the decision” and that sort of thing.

Most recently, when Wilson said he hadn’t actually contradicted anything Bush said — versus the things he said a year ago.

Honest to God, man — at least TRY to make some sense.

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:42 pm 67. Katherine:

You got me there, Rick!

You are right, Solzhenitsyn would not support Bush, though I suspect he would have agreed with the necessity of fighting the Islamic terror head on.

Unfortunately entire Europe so much bought into the “Bush is a Irresponsible Hick” image that even former dissidents in the Eastern Europe want Bush gone, while admitting that WOT must go on. This is forgivable up to a point, because the only news about the US they get is from sources such as BBC and NYT, and NYT is considered to be nothing but pro-government American propaganda, because they occasionally print some pro-Bush bit of news when absolutely forced by events. But such views also feed into the belief in intellectual superiority of Europeans over Americans. Lots of people over there truly believe that “Stupidest (insert nationality) is smarter than smartest American -MM”.

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:44 pm 68. DennisThePeasant:

Tano-

Joe Wilson is so two days ago, and you have work to do. We need a meme briefing on Sandy Berger to hold us over until Josh Marshall can weigh in. Hop to it!

Jul 20, 2004 - 5:45 pm 69. Tano:

“Go ahead and post the cite for whenever the Whitehouse declined to stand by the Sixteen Words”

“Now, I can tell you, if the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, had said, take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, without question. What we’ve said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn’t have put this in the President’s speech — but that’s knowing what we know now. ”

Condi Rice, at WH news briefing 7/11/03, a few days after Wilson’s op-ed piece.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:04 pm 70. Samuel:

What can I say? If Sandy were a Bush operative it would be Watergate all over again. But alas he is not. The media will do what it can but this is too big for the MSM to sweep under the rug. They can’t and they know it, so they won’t. The Democrats spending so many years on the aggressive end of such actions that they became blind to the lessons of the other side, they are so full of themselves that this is just going to kill them.

I have taken much tome away from posting because it was just becoming too frustrating, especially living in Washington. Not that I think Bush will lose, I have always thought he would win, but this will do more than seal it for Bush. Well that is unless they find true “lies” on the Bush camp, not those false accusations about WMD’s etc. What we are talking about with Sandy Berger is the sign of behavior that has all the aura of the “smoking gun”. If this touches the Kerry campaign at all he will lose and lose big, (he was going to lose anyway) the Democrats can I’ll afford this.

–

Tano

Your partisanship won’t save Kerry, Wilson or Berger, let alone the Democrats and the MSM from this, it certainly won’t hurt Bush. Stick you head in the sand all you want, the American people don’t hold Bush in the contempt you think they do.

The truth of the matter is they are just tired and hoping someone will come and convince them there is an easier way, or maybe that the WOT can be willed along differently. They are not looking for scape goating of the Bush administration. What the Berger incident may actually prove is that the American people will be willing to take out there frustrations by proxy on others, in their hearts they know Bush doesnít deserve the take the MSM and Democrats have been heaping on him. I predict the Democrats are about to be smacked down by the very weapons they have been wielding all along.

Tano, it is called irony and we are about to enter its high season. I have told people on this blog over and over, Kerry will do himself in. The MSM can’t save him now and what more can they do to hurt Bush? The media has so conditioned the public that Bush is now “teflonized”, he has withstood all the accusations and the Edwards bounce is gone. I had predicted Bush would win 53-57% of the vote, I now believe closer to 57% (at least 55%).

Now the very political weaponry and atmosphere that Democrats pulled on this Administration will be turned on the Democrats but ironically not by the Bush Administration but rather by the vey Sharks the Democrats unleashed on them. In truth when these MSM types smell blood that can’t be saved they will move forward to get their fill, they can’t help themselves.

I am glad I am out of politics.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:07 pm 71. PeterUK:

Rick,

The most Dionysian administration that the US has ever endured.

Yes it certainly wasn’t platonic.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:09 pm 72. Doug:

It’s just unbelievable. I don’t care what the excuse is and I have no idea what the guy was trying to hide but he was trying to hide something. It’s inconceivable that this was an accident and once again Democrats are forced to defend the indefensible while repeating brazen absurdities about President Bush. I AM A DEMOCRAT! I cannot take this anymore. And you just KNOW that if the parties were reversed and say Condi Rice had been caught doing this the Demmocrats would SLAM her. When will it end? Why was Berger swiping documents? What is he trying to hide? As much as I want to ignore this as more partisan sniping I cannot. The Clinton administration is trying to evade responsibility for its actions and inactions that brought us to the pretty pass we are in now. That is not right and cannot be allowed to stand. I want to know what Berger and his superiors felt they could not allow the public to find out about.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:18 pm 73. Fresh Air:

Rick B.–

Thanks for your comment. Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.

Tano–

For chrissakes, listen to DTP! This blog works like the old game show from the seventies, “Name that Tune.” You probably aren’t old enough to remember, so let me explain the concept as it relates to this blog. Roger names the “tune,” and the rest of us try to hum the melody.

The tune for this thread is Sandy Berger, not Joe Wilson. Get with the program, Tano-Schoenberg. Your dissonance is crashing!

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:18 pm 74. Rick Ballard:

Peter,

Now you’ve made me think again. You owe me aspirin (or Guiness) and someday I shall collect. I can’t conceive of Bush attempting to achieve a Platonic ideal any more than I can consider Bubbaboy entering into a Platonic relationship (barring other species and Madeleine Albright type physical attributes – and I’m not positive that either would be a hindrance). I was thinking more along the lines of Apollonian structure vs. the Dionyesian concept of chaos. Berger seems more a “rules are for the little people” sort of fellow. The action of the play has moved to “by the way, Oedipus old chap, may I present Jocasta”.

The third act awaits.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:31 pm 75. penwil:

Samuel: “The media will do what it can but this is too big for the MSM to sweep under the rug. They can’t and they know it, so they won’t.”

The problem for them is that the story is flatout too sexy. Hiding top secret documents in one’s socks for heaven’s sakes. As more and more of the public finds out about it they’re all going to be wondering what in hell was in those documents, and they’re going to be buying papers and channel surfing to find out who’s doing the best job of breaking the story. There’s still enough competition left out there that they (i.e. WaPo and the NYT and the networks) know that if readers/viewers can’t find the nitty gritty in their own paper or on their own channel they’ll just go get it from the competition.

And if it was a deliberate leak by someone with an agenda then we probably haven’t seen the last of it by a long shot. A story like this you’d want to reveal in stages, with each revelation being worse than the last.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:33 pm 76. Roberts:

Its always fun to read the things Tano claims support his statements and notice the … gap, between his claims and the supporting quotes.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:43 pm 77. Old Dad:

Let’s grant that the President, himself, leaked that Mr. Berger was under investigation. Let’s also grant that the leak was politically motivated. Let’s also grant that Mr. Berger didn’t stash the pilfered documents in his socks, pants, trousers, or coat.

But let’s agree on what is almost universally admitted. Berger walked from the National Archives on at least two occasions with classified documents. Perhaps, he absentmindedly stashed them in his portfolio. How funny, especially given that it’s illegal.

Now, let’s assess what’s more detrimental to national security:

A. A former NSA to President Clinton feels entitled to pilfer classified documents (and I don’t care if the docs were Betty Crocker recipes).

B. The above is leaked in a election year.

I would advise all Clintonistas and supporters of Senator Kofi to, in the unforgettable words of the Monty Python boys, “run away, run away.”

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:52 pm 78. Roberts:

I’m amused by those who want to claim that the timing of this leak is some sort of Karl Rove plot …

amused because I don’t have to live in their neighborhood where no doubt they are known for their proclamations of having been abducted by aliens …

But it is just as likely that someone on the Kerry campaign or among Berger’s people leaked this to get it out and through the media spin cycle before the convention. We’ve already seen preliminary leaking as a tactic for the Clinton crew.

Jul 20, 2004 - 6:54 pm 79. PeterUK:

Rick,Guinness and Asprin chaser OK? I was thinking along the lines of Stoic and Epicurean,such a useful lot those Romans.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:01 pm 80. michael ledeen:

It seems he smuggled out documents five different times, at least. Inadvertant? Well, maybe he’s some kind of compulsive/obsessive weirdo, you know, can’t keep his hands off classified documents, and gets some kind of perverse thrill by holding them against his body…

CNN’s crawl seemed to be saying that at least some of the documents related to the original 1993 WTC bombing. Can we think out loud for a moment? What might be damaging in THOSE papers? Well, suppose there were information suggesting that Iraqi intelligence was involved. That might be damaging…and worse yet, it would make Laurie Mylroie a world-wide best-selling authoress overnight.

I think Berger et al might do worse than steal to avoid THAT outcome :=)

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:14 pm 81. TmjUtah:

“Now, I can tell you, if the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, had said, take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, without question. What we’ve said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn’t have put this in the President’s speech — but that’s knowing what we know now. “

There’s nothing in that statement that says the sixteen words were improper given the context and data available to make the speech.

Further, I remember vividly the forgery story making the rounds immediately after the speech…but within days the British had acknowledged the existence of the forgery and reiterated that they stood behind their analysis based on other intelligence.

I wonder what Rice said after the Brits came back with that?

The Hutton report has found no effort on the part of the British cabinet to misrepresent intelligence.

The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report directly contradicts Wilson claim his wife had nothing to do with why his sorry, partisan agenda driven, non-entity ass was dispatched to drink tea with Africans, reported that the CIA evaluated his data as corraborating evidence supporting the contention that Iraq was actively seeking to purchase uranium ores from African countries, and in over TWO HUNDRED direct witness testimonies found no evidence of any administration pressure to ’sex up’ intelligence findings one way or another.

Break -

You know what the application of ‘Swarm’ is, re Wretchard’s fine essay, when applied to the current domestic political situation?

Look at the battlefield where Bush, and our willing partners in the coalition, have hit the Islamofascists on so many fronts at so many levels that yes, the terrorists are experiencing fracture and episodic collapse. If the pressure is sustained, the process cannot help but accelerate.

Domestically, the Dems and their fellow travellers have swarmed themselves.

A lie is an unnatural construction. A truth stands on its own but a lie must be crafted, presented, then defended. Just what truths have the opposition brought to play against this administration?

Stole Florida? No. Regardless of your opinion on the court process and decision, Bush won the count however way you slice it up.

Ran the economy straight down past Hooverville into the second Great Depression? No. He inherited a recession and acted decisively and effectively to end it using tax cuts and tax policy that rewarded investment.

Lost world respect? Not hardly. He gave the U.N. a chance to be relevant according to its own resolutions…and they failed. Having french people think well of us does nothing to keep U.S. citizens alive. Especially when french jets, antitank missiles, and small arms are marketted directly to rogue nations.

Lied? About what? About preemption? About the Bush Doctrine? About the challenge we face? About how long it will take? No. The minority and the media has adopted conflict = failure as the meme, and is still sticking to it even in the face of over twenty five million people getting ready to vote for their own democratic government smack dab in the middle of the swamp.

The opposition has swarmed themselves. The acts of Berger (and possibly Wilson) depart from the propaganda to the criminal…and that may be the straw that breaks the back of whatever five-legged reptilian monstrosity the Dems have constructed over the last three years.

Karl Rove is a smart old boy, and Bush too. They were smart enough to stay out of the way and let the Democrats be themselves.

Now if the house and senate Republicans can find it in themselves to just shut the F* up and let the cards fall maybe we can all enjoy the show as the collapse accelarates.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:18 pm 82. richard mcenroe:

rick, Roger, PeterUK, not “The Birds;” if we’re going to phrase this in terms of Aristophanes, then I’d suggest the relevant text is “The Clouds”, with its attack on Sophocles’ doctrines of Just and Unjust Discourse. What better metaphor for a Democratic Party and a pack of 70’s reactionaries who will say ANYTHING to get their way?

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:18 pm 83. chuck:

Hey, Roberts, I’m one of those who raised the topic. I love watching the Democrats squirm, and watching the corrosive atmosphere that they created collapsing on their party. But the timing is still a matter of curiosity to me. As a political neophyte, I have to ask myself, did this just happen, or was it helped along? Just trying to understand the nuances of the game, see?

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:19 pm 84. richard mcenroe:

Rick Ballard ó Did you ever see The Smothers Brothers doing “Oedipus the King” in Branson?

“Mom always like you best!”

“You got that right…”

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:23 pm 85. Barry Dauphin:

The Dems are singing in harmony about the interesting “timing” of the release of information re: Berger. Well coreographed. Of course nothing earth shattering is happening now. The timing is fortunate for the Dems, better this week than next when they have the convention, It’s beginning to sound more like a Democratic leak. They knew this Berger was cooked.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:28 pm 86. Barry Dauphin:

sorry- choreographed

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:29 pm 87. Fresh Air:

Michael Ledeen–

I hadn’t heard some of the documents in question pertained to the ‘93 attack. Interesting theory about the Iraqis as well.

However, I don’t think Berger was trying to hide information insofar as everything in the room was likely a copy. Who was he trying to protect by secreting a copy for himself? is the real question, IMHO.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:31 pm 88. richard mcenroe:

Doug ó The Democratic party you and I belonged to is dead as the Whigs. Reagan cut the heart out of it, Carter and Clinton dragged it through mud, and the current “leadership” and candidates are busy defiling the corpse.

It may be difficult to accept, but the Republicans are becoming the mainstream, consensus party FDR’s Democrats once were, and in the absence of a new centrist party arising, more and more Democrats are going to be driven to them by the quota-masked racism and addled, senescent rage of the Democrats today.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:31 pm 89. Kevin P:

Roger:

I had the day off and I have been following this story all day long.Let us all agree that we don’t know everything yet. And we won’t for a while.But I have been reading and watching the Berger defenders and have noticed a telling trend.The morning papers started off with ignoring or under reporting the story.The initial defenders were fairly strong with their weapon of mass distraction meme.In the last hour or two the defenders seem to be jumping ship.The best they seem to be able to muster up is a meek “this is a very disturbing story” or “this has nothing to do with Kerry”.The Rove plot accusations seem to be diminishing.This is amatuer punditry at best but when the defenders go from full throated to sheepish in less then 12 hours it doesn’t bode well for for Mr. Berger.Even Lanny Davis could only come up with a weak “this is politics” defense.The ten minutes I saw him was the most defensive I have ever seen him on TV and he is usually a master at attack and deflection.This should be an interesting story.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:36 pm 90. Tano:

Utah,

Hope you enjoyed the hockey game. I appreciate that you at least make the attempt at a substantive comment. There have been no others, and I was about to conclude that this anti-Wilson jihad was running completely on empty.

So what do you have to say? You point out that Rice is not thereby claiming that they were wrong to say the words, at the time.

But it is also clear, that in hindsight, they disavow the words. So the words were wrong, but they innocently didnt know it at the time.

If you recall, my original claim was simply this:

” there is the fact that the WH itself admitted that the words should not have been in the speech”.

That is exactly what Rice said.

You go on to agree with me that the committee refuted any claim that Plame had nothing whatsoever to do with him going. But it also is clear that he was not sent by her, or directly on her recommendation. Dont see any disparity with what I said originally.

You also repeat what I said about the CIA’s new claim that they thought his reported bolstered the story. I raised the question of how Wilson was supposed to know how his report would be interpreted deep down in the bowels of the CIA. He could certainly have honestly assumed that everyone would see it as a debunking, as he did. I went on to question how the CIA could have interpreted it that way, given that they went on to strip those words from various speeches. You dont respond to that.

And of course, Wilson never used the “sexed-up” term – he simply spoke of his own particular issue.

The rest of your post is, shall we say, a bit off topic? I dont know what it has to do with the Wilson issue per se.

ANyway, still havent heard anything to disabuse me of my interpretations….

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:37 pm 91. wxjames:

Burger said he did it for the Clinton administration. That explains why he was wearing socks. The thought that he is caught in a time warp crossed my mind.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:39 pm 92. Fresh Air:

Tano–

The rest of your post is, shall we say, a bit off topic?

Is your irony detector broken? EVERYTHING YOU HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC.

Run along now, I believe Dennis assigned you some homework.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:47 pm 93. chuck:

TMJ :

I think Tano has a point, but can we drop the topic? It’s not part of this thread, if you get my drift.

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:48 pm 94. JBR:

This whole thing reeks of Chappaqua. Does anyone else think it possible that the Clintons are behind this (with appropriate deniability) so that Kerry’s campaign would be harmed, helping to keep things open for Hillary 2008?

Jul 20, 2004 - 7:48 pm 95. Sandy P:

–CNN’s crawl seemed to be saying that at least some of the documents related to the original 1993 WTC bombing. Can we think out loud for a moment? What might be damaging in THOSE papers?–

I’ve been writing on other forums before the war last year that I wasn’t interesting in whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I want to know about WTC #1 and Oklahoma City.

I also told them – including foreigners – if it’s ever found out that Iraq was involved in either of those, doesn’t matter what “the world” thinks about going into Iraq.

We were justified.

Late as usual, but justified.

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:15 pm 96. Sandy P:

Preview is my friend, PIMF -

interested

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:18 pm 97. Syl:

Well, the more I think about the old sock stuffer, the more I think it was merely incompetence and laziness and an attitude of ‘rules don’t apply to me’.

However my Joe hopes he goes to jail. It doesn’t happen often in cases such as these (and there are many many many that never hit the papers). There seem to be a lot of people here who have worked with classified stuff. My Joe is one of them too..in fact he taught classification management for the Defense Dept for years and helped write the FOIA stuff. (Which is why the FBI investigated me the moment Joe moved in.)

Anyway, that footnotes thing got me hysterical. I tried to tell Joe that the only thing Berger stuffed in his socks was the footnotes, but was laughing too hard to get it out of my mouth.

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:18 pm 98. Kevin P:

Roger:

Poor Sandy.Even Matthew Yglesias and Josh Marshall have jumped ship. The democrats have cut him lose and he is lost in the Perfect Storm.They are backstroking away from him in record times that would qualify them for Athens 2004.The only question now is whether any of the documents were originals , not copies, which documents are “lost” and whether the 9-11 commision actually saw the ones that are missing.I think the LA Times might actually cover this story now. It might even make the front page.

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:22 pm 99. Roberts:

Well, now we know why Kerry hasn’t been to any administration intel briefings … he’s got a pipeline into the backpocket of someone’s pants … err, I mean memos.

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:49 pm 100. rgvdh:

Sandy P writes:

“Also, I am told that an effort is being made–either by the press or the Kerry/Berger camp; it’s not very clear….”

What isn’t very clear is what the difference is between the press and the Kerry campaign.

Jul 20, 2004 - 8:55 pm 101. TmjUtah:

Tano has no point.

He quoted one statement made by Condoleeza Rice in response to the media storm about the forgery revalations, and I pointed out that the Brits subsequently acknowledged the existence of the forgery and their continued confidence in their analysis based on other sources. What he’s talking about after that, I haven’t a clue. I pointed out that Wilson’s published opinions and claims have been thoroughly gutted by the Commission.

Quoting Roger, from the originating blogpost:

“So this has been, so far, the Summer of Disgrace – first Wilson, now Berger and to me much of the mainstream media. Fear of the truth and propaganda rule, lest Bush get elected!”

Chuck, it’s all the same topic.

Jul 20, 2004 - 9:49 pm 102. WichitaBoy:

Why isn’t Berger in custody right now?

Why is there one set of laws for Big People and another for little people? Some democracy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t removing classified documents without permission a felonious offense?

Why isn’t Berger in custody right now?

Let me state it differently. Do you believe that if you, dear reader, removed classified documents without permission that you would be footloose and fancy free on the streets today? Or is it possible that you might be in the pokey pending further investigation?

Why isn’t Berger in custody right now?

Apparently the political process is a grand farce in which the privileged convince us to support one group of millionaires or billionaires over the other–much as the millionaire professional athletes convince us to support one team of millionaires over the other–while the privileged elite are able to flaunt the laws under which we little people would be tossed in the can without a moment’s thought.

Why are people like Tano taken in by this? Red thieves good! Blue thieves bad! Or is it the other way round?

Some democracy.

Jul 20, 2004 - 10:16 pm 103. HA:

Michael Ledeen,

CNN’s crawl seemed to be saying that at least some of the documents related to the original 1993 WTC bombing. Can we think out loud for a moment? What might be damaging in THOSE papers?

There is no way that the Berger Heister would have taken such a high risk unless the stakes were huge. So I think you’re on to something.

CNN’s crawler noted that the documents related to the ‘93 WTC attack. I suspect that those documents related to Saddam’s involvement to the first WTC attack, and furthermore, that a number of the suspects in the first attack were involved in the second attack. Note that the second attack must have occurred after the documents were produced. Such documents would make it impossible to bury Saddam’s potential involvement in BOTH WTC attacks.

The Democrats are running against Bush by trying to undermine the war against Saddam. If there is evidence documented by the Clinton administration that Saddam was connected to BOTH the first WTC attack and the FOLLOW-UP attack, Bush wins re-election in a historic landslide. Furthermore, after their public pronouncments over the last year, the entire Democratic establishment would be disgraced by the disclosure of such documents.

How much risk would the Berger Heister take bury this information? Plenty if the stakes were the future of the Democratic party.

Jul 21, 2004 - 4:32 am 104. DennisThePeasant:

It would seem that in a previous life, our Tano played with the band on the Titanic…Hence the urge to fiddle on desperately to distract the crowd from larger issues.

Jul 21, 2004 - 5:38 am 105. Hepzi:

Is anyone else’s intelligence insulted by the “dishevelled absent minded professor” defense?

I find it astounding that the National Security Advisor, for pity’s sake, should be so casual about classified documents. We’re not talking some 22 year old congressional staffer here.

Makes you wonder what walked out off his desk while he served, and I can’t help remembering the listening device which was discovered in Madeleine Albrights office several years ago….

Jul 21, 2004 - 10:11 am 106. PeterUK:

Syl,

Surely if Berger thought he was above the rules he wouldn’t have been hiding the documents.If he had had real chutzpah he would have got the archivists to run him off copies.

Jul 21, 2004 - 10:16 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: