123 Comments

1. R C Dean:

Versions of the millenium review supposedly had handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials… hmm… Now that just about puts the kibosh on the idea that these documents were merely copies, doesn’t it?

Not necessarily – the archives staff could have made copies for the reading room of the originals with the hand-written notes.

I am still very unclear on whether Berger’s theft of documents involved the only copy of any of these documents. Any pointers?

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:25 am 2. David Thomson:

Sandy Bergerís ìinadvertentî argument can no longer pass the laugh test. He was deliberately removing documents. The question is now why? What was in those papers deemed worth risking a jail sentence? How much is Richard Clarke involved? What evidence will be forthcoming from Byron Yorke of the National Review in the next couple of days? Itís increasingly looking like this scandal will indeed destroy John Kerry. And Roger Simon is right to point out that the weird fact that Bill Clinton knew about the investigation while Kerry claims ignorance. The Massachusetts senator looks like a minor player. That alone insults and marginalizes Kerry.

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:29 am 3. Peter G.:

I question the timing of this post. Just a few hours before the 911 Report comes out, eh?

It’s also the 208th anniversary of the founding of Cleveland. Cleveland happens to be Kerry territory in a battleground state. So we’re supposed to think there’s no intent here to distract from Cleveland’s birthday? Please.

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:35 am 4. Roger:

“Not necessarily – the archives staff could have made copies for the reading room of the originals with the hand-written notes.”

Good point, R C. But even that raises questions too. Did they make copies of ALL documents with notes? Which ones? When were the notes made? And was Berger aware of their being copies (if there were)?

No wonder this investigation is taking so long. It is indeed more complicated than it appears on the surface. And more important.

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:37 am 5. richard mcenroe:

Peter G — And what about Punxatawny? This is all clearly a long-term plan to take Punxatawny out of play.

And let’s not forget Dead Horse, Alaska…

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:38 am 6. chuck:

Roger,

Yep, it’s beginning to smell pretty suspicious. Deja vu two, it’s bringing back that old Clintonian odor of scandal: hint of felony, touch of CYA, and the VRWC singled out for blame. Now that Berger has so kindly marked out the documents of interest, we may hope for an abridged version. Meanwhile, experienced folks can offer Kerry the perfect response: “I could hardly breath, I was gulping for air.”

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:40 am 7. Carl O. Witz:

This is not the time or place for wild speculation.

-Oh yes it is!

Well then.

A draft of the document said something to the effect of: we were lucky this time, but we better get serious about terrorism or we won’t be so lucky the next time. We gotta crack down on Middle Eastern men, particularly Saudis, running around the world ready to kill Americans to violently promulgate their crackpot Wahhabi philosophy.

Somebody important writes in the margin: you better take this out, because we don’t want to piss of the Saudis in an election year, they might cut off the money.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:08 am 8. richard mcenroe:

Well, according to the LA Times/KTLA, “the Clinton and Bush administrations missed major chances to kill Osama bin Laden in the ’90’s…”

Damn that George Bush for not killing bin Laden in 1998! Damn him, I say!

Oh, wait a minute…

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:08 am 9. Fresh Air:

RC Dean—

I have also not seen a definitive account of whether the docs were copies. The whole thing would make more sense if they were originals with handwritten marginalia, since it would explain Berger’s zeal to locate all of the versions and remove them from the archives.

I wonder, however, if the archives staff wouldn’t have been inclined to make an extra copy of the after-action reports after the first couple of document disappearances–unless making copies is verboten.

It would be interesting to know if the documents bore a COPY stamp or a “1 out of 3″ stamp or somesuch that would let Berger know what he was dealing with, or if it was just a massive cataract of unorganized paper. I suspect the former is more likely.

Now that the content piece of the puzzle is taking shape, there are two main questions: (1) Who would be most embarrassed by these documents? (i.e. Whose ass was he covering?); and (2) The big one: Why has this investigation dragged on for so long?

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:09 am 10. Kevin P:

Roger:

LA Times watch- These are lines from this mornings LA Times editorial on Bergergate.- “The Berger Smoke Screen”…..”Berger has always been a plodder,unimaginative but dilligent”…..”Indeed, it’s striking that Berger’s accusers have yet to supply a motive for his actions”…

…..”His actions are so stupid that it would probably take a genius to explain them. We aren’t hearing from the geniuses yet”

Translation- This is not a story.It is a smokescreen. Don’t investigate the story, they put a small story on page 18 that basically is a synopsis from Bergers lawyers and takes everything they say as fact.Instead of putting a reporter on the story and finding out what his motivations are, I seen 5 to 10 possibilties on this blog alone that at least seem very plausible, the Times is telling us because 2 days into the story there is not a proven motivation there must not be a motivation. So Roger, and everyone else, relax. Berger is sloppy and stupid but this is not a story that should be followed. In fact the only story worth tracking down is the leak.Berger would never be so dumb to think he could get away with this so that proves there was no bad intent. Nixon would never be so dumb to tape his conversations and Clinton would never sleep with an intern when he knew he was under constant investigation. So letsa go on to other topics,except for the timing of the leak story, because after two days of pondering the Mandarins at the Times has told us so.

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:38 am 11. chuck:

Oh, I do love these big shots who think they are so smart that no one would ever notice what they are doing. Hee, hee. Everyone notices, they just keep quiet. This is like those stories of celebrities caught shop lifting, Winona Ryder anyone. Let’s see if Berger dresses up for the trial.

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:49 am 12. wxjames:

This has Clinton all over it.

Bergergate = Clinton’s Watergate.

Hey Willy, next time, call a plumber.

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:52 am 13. mrp:

This NY Daily News article sheds some light on Mr. Berger’s antics at the National Archive.

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger repeatedly persuaded monitors assigned to watch him review top secret documents to break the rules and leave him alone, sources said yesterday.

Berger, accused of smuggling some of the secret files out of the National Archives, got the monitors out of the high-security room by telling them he had to make sensitive phone calls.

The Daily News, of course, has to finish up the article with a bunch of WH-bashing, but that’s par for the course.

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:54 am 14. Knucklehead:

Peter G,

The following is just “knuckleheaded speculation” but I guess that the answer to your question can, at least to an extent, be gotten at by looking at the scope and scale of the “National Archives”. The archives are where we save the incredible mountain of “important paper” the government generates. And it must have some interest in preserving the actual “source documents”.

The sheer volume is almost certainly too much to just automatically copy and file everything and the fact that, in this case, they are important documents requiring security suggests that copying them might be the wrong thing to do. If you have a document you need to keep safe and secure copying it doubles your difficulty.

Also, even if there is a “copy vault”, remember the scale here. This is, apparently, a HUGE collection of documents covering, obviously, a decade or more put in place for a particular purpose. Anyone looking to “hide” information for some near or mid-term timespan doesn’t necessarily need to eliminate all copies – simply eliminating the copies available in the one place where people are actually looking would likely be sufficicient.

Let’s just say, for the sake of exposing the point I’m trying to make, that there is some huge cache of documents about a very important matter. You suspect (or know because you were directly involved in the generation or review of those documents) that some notes were scribbled here and there on some small number (or even just the drafts of one of the documents sure to be in the cache) by various key people you wish to protect. It is the cache that people are poking around in that represents any danger over any meaningful timeframe. The same pile of documents in some distant “protective redundancy vault” are not particularly dangerous because they’re just collecting dust – nobody is poking around through that pile.

If you can remove the documents of concern from the pile that is being poked at, and do so without anyone realizing the documents are gone, then you’ve accomplished your mission – at least for any timeframe that would be of interest. If some historian someday realizes the “poked at pile” doesn’t match the “stored for redundancy and safety pile”, so what. You and the people you are trying to protect are long gone by then or the issue is so old that it no longer matters.

Like I said, just knuckleheaded speculation.

Jul 22, 2004 - 7:59 am 15. wxjames:

If Clinton, the Godfather of the democrat party, had full knowledge of the Berger investigation, then his failure to brief the Kerry campaign, looks like a knife in Kerry’s back the size of the South Tower. The question has to be echoing around Kerry’s skull. What have they (Clintons) done to me ?

This is great fun !

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:04 am 16. Knucklehead:

Oh, BTW, that ponderous, knuckleheaded speculation I presented above is, to me, a reason to suspect that this was not a “Save the Legacy” mission that Berger was embarked upon.

Let’s not forget that he was acting, apparently as Clinton’s openly designated agent here; maybe I got the wrong impression from what I’ve read so far, but I specifically recall that the current administration requested the former administration to assign someone to vet documents for release to the commission and Berger was the person appointed by whomever does such things for the former administration.

So Berger and the team that appointed him to “vet documents” might have known full well that while the final version of a particular document might be “safe” the marked up drafts might be “dangerous”. I speculate that Berger knew precisely what he was after and was trying to ensure that no “accidental” discovery of any draft document rather than the final document could possibly find its way to the commission. If this is the case he has actually accomplished his mission although it may have turned out to be a suicide mission, so to speak.

Is there any chance that that the details of whatever was scribbled onto the drafts, and the drafts themselves, would ever become public? The commission report is being released. Whatever was in those documents, even if there are copies, is not part of a different investigation and, quite possibly, safe from the completed investigation.

Somewhat weak on my part, but I think the mission had more immediate urgency than “Saving the Legacy” – it had something very important to do with “the here and now” rather than the “judgement of history”.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:20 am 17. vnjagvet:

As this saga has developed over the past week, I have a hunch a gratuitous warning is in order for Clinton/Berger’s skillful, well-oiled defense team of Davis, et al. There is a lot of diversionary information being planted with and carried by the MSM. But it will now be even tougher to maintain that this was a “third rate burgl[e]ry” than it was thirty years ago.

Like Watergate, somewhere there is a “deep throat” lurking. Unlike Watergate, that individual can use the blogosphere, and will likely have a receptive audience.

Stay tuned, Roger. A great plot is unfolding.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:20 am 18. Dave Schuler:

David Thomson:

What was in those papers deemed worth risking a jail sentence?

I’m willing to bet that at no time did the notion that he might end up doing jail time for pilfering papers cross Mr. Berger’s mind. He didn’t stick the documents in his pants because he wanted to avoid being arrested. He stuck the documents in his pants because he wanted to get them out of the building and they might have been confiscated otherwise.

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he didn’t end up doing a day of jail time and even retained his security clearance. The rich (and powerful) are different than you and me.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:25 am 19. jerry:

I want to engage in some wild speculation here. In a situation like this, who screams the loudest? I believe the leaker screams the loudest. Here we have Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton stooge who heads the DNC, grandstanding with and FOI request that cannot be honored until well after the election. He knows that so why does he do it? It is obvious, this is Billary operation designed to discredit Kerry. Right now, Kerry looks like he has a chance and if he wins in November it would be the end of HRCís Presidential hopes.

Over the past year, McAuliffe has been the chief orchestrator of campaign to make the Democrats looking nutty. Three is only one reason why he would do this…make sure the Democrats lose in 04.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:29 am 20. Knucklehead:

vnjagvet,

Idunno… whatever Berger took and whatever he “lost” is now the province of a “you shouldn’t have taken this stuff or any stuff” scandal. The actual content is no longer the issue as far as any “punishment” of Berger goes.

Its possible that an issue that could have been, “Great Googley Moogley, look at what these people did with the nation’s security and lives of its citizens at stake!” and converted it into a “Gee, those Big Dogs sure are careless about secure documents, aren’t they? A head should roll here somewhere, don’t you think?” issue.

If that’s the case then we may have some explanation for why the esteemed former president finds it so amusing – it was rather nicely done even though it was discovered. Sort of a “Gee, we got caught but so what?” moment.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:29 am 21. Rick Ballard:

wxjames,

Far be it from be to discourage thoughts of Don Bubba having someone knifed but this seems to be more a “lets pants John “not a clue” Kerry in the cafeteria at lunch.”

How bright is it for JohnJohn to have Clinton retreads whose highest claim to fame is to look comfortable in kneepads within, if not the inner circle, at least close enough to tip Bubbette so that she can do a little “triangulation”? How many other Clintoclones are diligently working away within the campaign – but not necessarily for JohnJohn? Neither JohnJohn are noted for doing the logrolling and fundraising necessary to buy a semblance of loyalty within the party. Actually Don Bubba and the Gorebot were much, much better at that. The Bubbette doesn’t do a bad job of it either.

Wonder how JohnJohn are sleeping these days.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:35 am 22. Dave Schuler:

Over the past year, McAuliffe has been the chief orchestrator of campaign to make the Democrats looking nutty.

I disagree. I think he’s trying to make the party leadership not look nutty. His degree of success is an indication of the scope of the problem.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:37 am 23. Dave Schuler:

Knucklehead:

If that’s the case then we may have some explanation for why the esteemed former president finds it so amusing – it was rather nicely done even though it was discovered.

I don’t know. It reminds me of some advice a former boss of mine gave me. He said “Dave, one day you’ll be making a presentation before the board of directors and the sh*t’ll be running down your leg. I only have one piece of advice for you. Smile, Dave, smile.”

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:42 am 24. Juliette:

All this speculation over whether Berger lifted the actual documents or copies really irritates this fomer holder of a high-level security clearance. A copy of a classified document is…wait for it…a classified document. Think about it.

The conversation in the professional media regarding copies versus originals is a red herring designed for those who know little to nothing about the handling of classified material, which means the vast majority.

Don’t let them hook you.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:42 am 25. Fresh Air:

Juliette–

You are right about the media’s intent to dissemble about copies versus originals. The real issue, though is that if Berger hied off with originals, he was almost certainly trying to destroy evidence.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:47 am 26. RogerA:

Jerry–re McAuliffe and the FOIA request–I believe that criminal investigations are exempt from FOIA requests–certainly McA knew that–thus it was IMHO only grandstanding to cast blame on the White House–Reinforces the point about the leaker screaming the loudest.

Thank God the MSM is following up this scandal–;)

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:48 am 27. hollywood:

Here’s what I don’t get about this. The 9/11 Commission conducted a 20 month inquiry. Didn’t Commission staffers have access to this material on their own? If so, isn’t it possible/likely that one or more of them would have seen any document that Berger would want to remove/alter before last Sept/Oct.? Particularly the after action report? Wouldn’t that be one of the first things you’d want to look at? If I’m right, why would Berger take the risk of hiding something that might already have come to the Commission’s attention?

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:50 am 28. Roberts:

You have a good point Juliette. However, the spinners are trying to claim that if Berger just took copies, it doesn’t matter since that would indicate he couldn’t really destroy all of the records in question. They are basically begging the question of his motivation; ie., destroy an incriminating document. ( Of course, this all depends on whether or not there really were copies ).

However, its a flawed spin for several reasons. Berger may have just been trying to remove a document from the view of those using the reading room such as the Commission staff or witnesses. Or Berger may just be as stupid as Clinton wants us to believe.

And of course, Berger may have had other motivations that required the documents to be moved outside of the secure room. And that becomes even wilder speculation…

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:50 am 29. Roberts:

Hollywood, there are suggestions in some of the news reports I’ve read that Berger was reviewing documents on behalf of Bill Clinton to recommend release or withholding from the Commission.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:56 am 30. Rick Ballard:

RogerA,

Actually, the WH is exempt from FOIA requests – Mr. Rolodex knows that full well from Bubba’s time in orifice.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:56 am 31. hollywood:

“And of course, Berger may have had other motivations that required the documents to be moved outside of the secure room. And that becomes even wilder speculation…”

Hmmm…. So, I should check eBay to see if the docs are for sale?

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:58 am 32. Ben:

As Yogi Berra would say, “it’s like deja vu all over again.” Per the MSM, every Dem. scandal is NO BIG DEAL or ONLY ABOUT SEX or REALLY THE REPUBLICANS’ FAULT, etc., etc. ad infinitum. Really, it’s just tiresome.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:59 am 33. RogerA:

Rick–do you mean (gasp) that McCauliffe was grandstanding?

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:59 am 34. hollywood:

I hear you, Roberts, but wouldn’t your curiousity be aroused immediately as to any docs that were going to be withheld? Call me perverse: if somebody doesn’t want me to see something, that’s exactly the thing I want to see.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:02 am 35. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó Did you see the latest from Glenn Reynolds over at instapundit.com: “WAS KERRY THE ONLY ONE WHO DIDN’T KNOW? ”

Maybe you should call your novel about this “The Last Action Figure”… looks good, strikes a great pose, but needs someone to do the thinking and moving for him…

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:04 am 36. richard mcenroe:

Fresh Air ó The current reports are that Berger lifted ALL the copies of AT LEAST one document that we know about. If he fails to return all the copies, then we can reasonably assume there were specific notations on the missing copy he sought to suppress. Then the question becomes, on whose behalf?

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:07 am 37. RogerA:

Hollywood: actually–after your post about leathers on another thread, it isnt hard to call you perverse

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:08 am 38. jerry:

Dave:

How has TerryMaC moderated the Party? By embracing Michael Moore?…By recylcing the dead ANG story?…Keep screaming about Florida where it is more then likely the Democrats attempted to steal the election by double punching black republican ballots…? How about featuring Al “nut case” Gore in Primetime..? These actions don’t make the Democrats look normal…it makes them look scary

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:11 am 39. jedrury:

Next media event: Chairman and powerful

Virginia Congressman Tom Davis calls for a

House investigation. Out go the subpoenas;

one to Berger and many subpoenas to employees of the National Archive. “Come and testify in 10 days,” they read.

Berger comes in and by necessity takes the 5th – the liberal media aghast – and Joe/Jane Bureauocrat have their 30 minutes of fame on Capital Hill testifying about seeeing Sandy fill his pants and drawers with the collected drafts of the Millenium report.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:11 am 40. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

“Didn’t Commission staffers have access to this material on their own?”

When one walks into a library one has access to every book in there. That doesn’t mean one is going to set eyes on every shelf let along look at every book let alone read all the titles and so on. Access is nothing more or less that access. The question is what will they stop and look at, then read, then understand.

“If so, isn’t it possible/likely that one or more of them would have seen any document that Berger would want to remove/alter before last Sept/Oct.?”

Someone who simply wanted to see the after action report would tend to request or be given the final version. If whatever “problem” exists is not in the final but, rather, in the drafts then one can idly sit by and hope and pray that nobody happens upon a draft or thinks, “Hey, I’d like to see how this report developed over time, lemme see the drafts” or one can attempt to make sure that no drafts will be seen.

Additionally, keep in mind that Berger was sent to VET what could be seen by the commission. His job was, apparently, to look over the CSI level documents generated by the administration he worked for and make a decision regarding which could be released and what might, I suppose, require “redacting”. Nice position to be in if you know there’s something in there to be concerned about or if you open a file and piss you’re pants, “Holy SHIT! The freakin’ DRAFTS are in here! I told SallyMae to toss those in the burn bag, I know I did. Damn, whattamigonnadonow?”

“Particularly the after action report? Wouldn’t that be one of the first things you’d want to look at? If I’m right, why would Berger take the risk of hiding something that might already have come to the Commission’s attention?”

Asked and answered.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:12 am 41. chuck:

Juliette:

I interested in the copies question because I want to know what was in the documents. I hope the originals weren’t the only versions.

Holly Wood :

Berger was selecting the documents for the committee. After all, he was familiar with the sources, and there were literally tons of paper and many thousands of pages, much of it irrelevant. Someone had to do the initial screening and Berger was he. Too bad he was dishonest.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:15 am 42. Knucklehead:

Anyone else having fun here at Roger’s Place, playing Clue and listening to some people shout,

“Bill Clinton in The Archives with the Lackeyburger!”

and others shouting,

“Karl Rove in the West Wing with the Monkeywrench!”

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:32 am 43. hollywood:

“Additionally, keep in mind that Berger was sent to VET what could be seen by the commission. His job was, apparently, to look over the CSI level documents generated by the administration he worked for and make a decision regarding which could be released and what might, I suppose, require “redacting”. Nice position to be in if you know there’s something in there to be concerned about or if you open a file and piss you’re pants, ‘Holy SHIT! The freakin’ DRAFTS are in here! I told SallyMae to toss those in the burn bag, I know I did. Damn, whattamigonnadonow?’”

But Knucklehead, if that’s the case, why didn’t he just redact the “holy shit” stuff? And if you were a staffer for one of the Republicans on the Commission, anticipating that the blame game might be in play, wouldn’t you want all drafts of the after action report? I would.

Isn’t this a little too fox guarding the hen house?

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:33 am 44. BlahBernard:

New Viewpoint… Dems Leaked It

Last night on Scarborough Country (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5486890/), MSNBC’s political analyst, Lawrence O’Donnell, brought up an interesting perspective that while all the media was bashing the Republicans on overblowing the case and questioning the timing of the leak he believed it was the Kerry camp.

OëDONNELL: If you have worked in campaigns, you know that, when you get a bomb that you can throw at the other side, you save it until October. You save it as late as possible.

Imagine, for example, even this story breaking a week later, breaking the day John Kerry was to give his speech in Boston. That is exactly what the Kerry campaign didnët want. I think, when we get the journalistic autopsy on this eventually, what you are going to find is Sandy Berger very slowly and very reluctantly and very, very recently told the Kerry campaign that he was being investigated by the FBI.

The Kerry campaign immediately said to him, you have got to make that public right away and we cannot let you go forward without making that public. He makes it public. You watch what happens to the story in 12 hours, and you cut him loose. And you want that to happen as soon as possible. You want it to happen this week, rather than next week. You want it to happen in July, rather than October.

All the incentive to push this story out and get it done with now comes from the Kerry campaign. The Bush campaignës incentive would be exactly the opposite.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:33 am 45. jerry:

Sort of off topic. But just in case Tano returns there is this item from the 9-11 commision report taken from Clarke’s testimony….

MORE ON THAT CLARKE TID-BIT [Rich Lowry]

We apparently identified bin Laden at a camp, but held off an attack partly because of worries that a member of the UAE royal family was there too. But we hoped bin Laden might return to the camp and we would be able to target him then. Enter Richard Clarke and here is the commission’s narrative:

ìEven after bin Ladenís departure from the area, CIA officers hoped he might return, seeing the camp as a magnet that could draw him for as long as it was still set up. The military maintained readiness for another strike opportunity. On March 7, 1999, Clarke called a UAE official to express his concerns about possible associations between Emirati officials and bin Laden. Clarke later wrote in a memorandum of this conversation that the call had been approved at an interagency meeting and cleared with the CIA. When the former bin Laden unit chief found out about Clarkeís call, he questioned CIA officials, who denied having given such clearance. Imagery confirmed that less than a week after Clarkeís phone call the camp was hurriedly dismantled, and the site was deserted. CIA officers, including Deputy Director for Operations Pavitt, were irate. ëMikeí thought the dismantling of the camp erased a possible site for targeting bin Laden.î

Tano: Your hero Richard Clarke really screwed that one up didn’t he.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:40 am 46. John Lynch:

Blah Bernard

Have you ever seen a journalistic autopsy? An examination post facto on mistakes, missed takes, and missing takes? On motives of the parties and the coverage or lack thereof?

Why would we assume that there will be one here?

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:43 am 47. Fresh Air:

Richard Mac–

It isn’t clear from the reports I have seen that all of the original drafts have disappeared. I think at least two may have, but not necessarily all five, six or whatever.

As Mark Levin points out in The Corner this morning, it would be almost impossible for these docs to be “lost,” even on a messy desk, since they are held inside red folders and have lots of scary lettering with warnings and such all over them.

It is becoming clear to me it’s the handwritten marginalia at issue, not the versions, since these would probably be available from computers, etc.

Let’s think about who would have been penning things on these docs for a minute: Berger, Clarke, The Big He, Gorelick, Janet Reno, William Cohen. Loads of possibilities for embarrassing comments from that bunch.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:48 am 48. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

“But Knucklehead, if that’s the case, why didn’t he just redact the “holy shit” stuff?”

Because there must be some explainable reason to “redact” just in case an inquiring mind wants to know.

If you’ve worked on any document that has been reviewed by “higher ups” or other interested parties who do not have the responsibility to produce the document itself, you’ve seen how these things play out. The Higherups and Interstedparties will highlight this or underline that and scribble something in the margin that makes sense to whomever they are making the notation to but may make no sense whatsoever to somebody looking at things from outside the process of developing the document. And this works in a heirarchical fashion.

So, for example, a notation might be something like, “Marie, this puts the Big Dog on the spot, please rephrase” or “Harry, I don’t like this section but its your call. Just wanted to make sure you are aware” or “George, see minutes from mm/dd/yy PDB which contradict this section.”

The scribbles and drafts can indicate who knew what when and who suggested what changes and, potentially, why. Additionally such markups and drafts may contain links and pointers to different documents which may not be otherwise obvious.

Additionally to that, it would not be out of the question that the commission might have a full list of “titles” of the vetted docs in the archive and request from that list. If someone says, for example, “you released the final version of this document, but since I’m a very experienced committee member who knows how this works, I’d be interested in seeing any drafts that exist” which could potentially leave the vetter in a “hummannahummanna” position.

“And if you were a staffer for one of the Republicans on the Commission, anticipating that the blame game might be in play, wouldn’t you want all drafts of the after action report? I would.”

Ummmm…. haven’t you just made my point? If you’ve removed the drafts then you can answer the request, if it arises, with, “Sure, I’ll go vet those real quick… gee, the drafts seem to have been burn bagged or something… shit happens.”

“Isn’t this a little too fox guarding the hen house”

I don’t think anyone anywhere in any of these threads is claiming “The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth”. Its all, as I said above, the folks at Roger’s Place playing Clue. It is all speculation.

That said, given what little is known (and it ain’t much) this does have some look and feel of the fox having been sent to guard the henhouse, doesn’t it. If it walks like… quacks like… maybe it is.

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:56 am 49. Rick Ballard:

Mr. Bernard,

The tempo of the news cycle dictates the timing of “bad news” releases. When you want dump your own bad news, you do it Friday after the Sunday morning line-ups are set. The subjects on the Sunday morning shows become the focus of much of the following weeks media attention. I don’t think your “Kerry outed this” proposition stands up logically. Had it been true how does one explain the “I don’t have a clue.” gaffe. That one is a classic and a keeper – if Kerry’s camp were doing the outing I believe that they would have prepared him a bit better.

I do agree with your conclusion concerning the Bush camp holding this ’til later.

The timing of the link is fairly crucial wrt determining the probability of origin. The AP guy who started this has a history of working closely with Lanny Davis. Mr. Davis has more than adequate experience in news cycles and leak timing.

A dot here and a dot there and pretty soon you’ve got a picture (especially if you’re a pointillist).

Jul 22, 2004 - 9:58 am 50. rickE:

Roger, This article found at Orbusmax.com may shed some light on why the information was taken from the archives. Kerry Anti-Terror Plan Removed From Campaign Web Site After Berger Revelation

By Jeff Gannon

Talon News

July 22, 2004

WASHINGTON (Talon News) — Shortly after news broke that former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Samuel “Sandy” Berger was being investigated by the Justice Department for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives, the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) removed its anti-terror plan from its web site.

Republicans have suggested that the information contained in the documents was used to formulate Kerry’s policy, but are limited in proving those charges because the material is still classified. The sudden disappearance of the policy from the campaign web site that coincided with Berger’s dismissal supports Republicans’ contention that the purloined data formed the basis of at least part of the Democratic candidate’s homeland security program.

The link to the policy is now defunct, but the original page was temporarily preserved in a Google cache. The Kerry release outlining the policy is also archived on the conservative discussion board FreeRepublic.com (web site).

Key portions of the policy removed from the web site included the following three passages:

– Increase Port Security and Accelerate Border Security. Currently, 95% of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. John Kerry believes improvements in port security must be made, while recognizing that global prosperity and America’s economic power depends on an efficient system. Kerry’s plan would develop standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards. To improve security in commerce, John Kerry believes we should accelerate the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico “smart border” accords as well as implement security measures for cross-border bridges. Finally John Kerry will pursue modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security.

– Secure Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Weapons Facilities and Chemical Facilities. John Kerry will appoint an Energy Secretary who takes nuclear plant security seriously and ensures meticulous follow-up to any security violations. He would also order an immediate review of engagement orders and weaponry for plant guards, and ensure attack simulation drills be as realistic as possible. A Kerry Administration would ensure that security of our nuclear weapons facilities is a U.S. government responsibility — not cede it to private contractors as the Bush Administration considered doing. A Kerry Administration will tighten security at chemical facilities across the nation that produce or store chemicals, focusing first on facilities in major urban areas where millions of Americans live within the circle of vulnerability.

– Tighten Aviation Security and Combat Threats to Civilian Aircraft. John Kerry will close loopholes in existing regulations on cargo carried by passenger flights and increase the reliability of new screening procedures. Kerry will increase perimeter inspections of U.S. airports and work with international aviation authorities to make sure the same standards are in place at all international airports. He will work with our allies to crackdown on the sale of shoulder-fired missiles that could be used in an attack on civilian aircraft, and are sold on the black market.

The Kerry campaign did not respond to a Talon News inquiry about the removal of the link from the web site.

Instead of reviewing documents for the 9/11 Commission investigation,

aken.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:02 am 51. hollywood:

John Lynch,

You say, “Have you ever seen a journalistic autopsy?”

Actually, I have. David Shaw has done two that I’m aware of for the LA Times. One on their slanted and mistaken coverage of the McMartin Pre-School brouhaha, for which I believe he win a Pulitzer (sort of proving your point on how infrequently these occur). Another on the Times’ conflict of interest in publishing a promo magazine for Staples Center and inserting it in the paper (and apparently profiting on ads in it) while neglecting to mention the Times had some interest (I think financial) in the Center.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:05 am 52. wxjames:

Clinton believes Berger is sloppy. Is that because the other operatives Clinton sent in to life documents have not been detected ?

Also, the timing ? If Clinton wants to both derail the Kerry candidacy, and speak at the convention, the timing seems right.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:08 am 53. Samuel:

BlahBernard

New Viewpoint… Dems Leaked It

I promise you all those Ken Starr leaks were in fact by Clinton and Company to stem damage and “control” the story. Of course all this while pointing an accusatory finger at Ken Starr and the “dirty” Republicans. The bottom line is whether this was leaked or not by Democrats really doesn’t matter because it happened and now we will see how the media handles it.

Unlike Wilson there is way too much blood in the water for the media to resist. True, it only takes a drop of Republican blood for the MSM (Media Sharks Mainstreaming for a blood fix) to attack them while buckets of blood and an unsalvageable corpse for Democrats to be savaged. In truth unlike Wilson, with Berger we have buckets full, now maybe if Wilson gets to close they will eat him to.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:11 am 54. richard mcenroe:

Knucklehead ó There’s no reasons to assume Berger couldn’t have served or wasn’t serving two masters: provide Kerry with talking points and hide the juicy marginalia for his old boss.

My understanding though is that Clinton specifically requested Berger review his administration’s documentation prior to presentative to the commission…

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:13 am 55. Samuel:

wxjames

Clinton believes Berger is sloppy.

Clinton appreciates sloppiness, Monica was sloppy too.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:14 am 56. Rick Ballard:

BTW folks,

Mark R. Levin is doing yeoman work on this over at NRO’s The Corner. I should have credited him as source on some of what I’ve mentioned this morning.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:14 am 57. Samuel:

Rick Ballard

I used to absolutely hate Mark R. Levin because was Jewish, embarrassingly loud and conservative. Now I love Mark R. Levin because he is loud, conservative and Jewish.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:19 am 58. Dave Schuler:

jerry:

Simple answer: the national Democratic Party is scary. Like Roger (presumeably) I’m a Democrat. But Al Gore is no fringe personality. He was the party’s candidate for president in 2004. He’s not a left-wing nutcase. He’s a moderate Democrat. What does this tell you about the state of the party?

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:20 am 59. hollywood:

“Because there must be some explainable reason to ‘redact’just in case an inquiring mind wants to know.

“If you’ve worked on any document that has been reviewed by ‘higher ups’or other interested parties who do not have the responsibility to produce the document itself, you’ve seen how these things play out.”

In my experience, the way you handle this is to photocopy the original, make redactions on the copy and provide the redacted copy to the requesting party.

Then, if there’s an issue, a neutral (judge, mediator) reviews the original in camera and decides whether to release the unredacted material (in whole or in part) to the requestor.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:21 am 60. OldManRick:

Let’s play Sherlock concerning copies vs drafts vs originals.

Why multiple copies? If they were copies of the same thing, he would have only needed to see one of the copies. The fact that he saw multiple copies of the same report would indicate that they were copies made for review by multiple parties. Most likely with individual responses on each copy. Most likely explanation is a box of the review drafts of the final report with various parties comments. That explains multiple copies of the same document, allows you to call them copies, and explains why he needed to take multiple copies (they were different).

Originals vs photocopies? A photocopy of an annotated document is obvious. If they were photocopies of annotated documents, there is less reason to take them. You can’t hide anything. If you are setting a trap for him (like the staff did on Oct 2), you use the juiciest bait. Something that looks like the one and only copy. Most likely scenario is that he though he had the originals. Also, SCI is not photocopied willy nilly. More copies mean more risk of losing one copy. I have worked with SCI – you have to justify why you need a copy and cannot just borrow an existing copy.

Do photocopies of the lost documents exist? We won’t know until the grand jury hears the case. There is an investigation going on now and both the investigators and the defense are holding their cards tight. Berger is holding to the “I’m clumsy” line. His defense wants to know what the other side knows and wants to precondition the jury pool. The investigators are letting just enough out to spoil the “I’m clumsy” defense. Since he obviously hasn’t come clean in the last couple of months, the investigation needs some ground truth to judge his statements. He will only admit to what he knows the investigation knows. If they do exist, they investigation could use them to establish motive. As I understand it, there is no evidence sharing before a grand jury is called. That’s when the prosecution lays its evidence on the table.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:28 am 61. Kevin P:

Roger:

Let me start by saying it is true we don’t have all the information on this story nailed down. Here are some questions we need to know.Copies vs. Originals.The LA Times is already stating that as far as we know Berger only took copies. How do they know this? Because certain reporters have written this and Bergers Lawyers say so. It might be true but I don’t think this has been nailed down yet.Did the 9-11 commision see everything that Berger removed. The LA times says so. Why? Because certain 9-11 commision members say so and there have been reports in the paper that say so.So this means that the commision members know which notes and documents Berger took out and which ones he “lost” and what was on them. This could be true and if these commision members and reporters have a list of what he took, what was on them and which papers he lost I would believe it to but so far I have not read it.Just because the commision saw the FINAL report on the Millinium bombing doesn’t mean they saw all of the drafts and all of the notes in the margin.Was Berger just a absent minded NSA director with sloppy document handling techniques. It could be true but since the removed docs and notes seem to be related to just one event it seems unlikely. He was assigned to look at all related terror docs and if he was just sloppy he would have “inadvertantly” removed, lost , destroyed, whatever, docs and notes from different events because apparently this happened on more than one occasion. The fact’ asfar as weknow so far, that the lost docs pertain just to one area seems to indicate intent, not sloppiness.In summation, We don’t know enough, this story needs to be investigated regardless of the political intent. I think there are portions of the 9-11 commision that are very politically driven but that does not mean all of it is false. To borrow the timing theme I notice the LA Times is not ignoring the results of the 9-11 commision even though the realease of the report is nicely “timed” with the start of the Democratic Convention.For the LA Times to try to ignore this as a simple “smokescreen before they have even looked in to it is agenda journalism. “Indeed it’s striking that Berger’s accusers have yet to supply a motive for his accusations”. Off the top oy head, Legacy rescue,CYA patrol,selective document dumping,dirt for Kerry.All or none of these might be true but they are certainly plausable. Heck, if the Times would actually investigate the story they might even find out some new ones.The Times is blowing as much smoke as Berger.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:29 am 62. chuck:

Samuel,

Nice to see you back. Yes, the Democrats have been dumping chum in the water, and now there is a man overboard. Time to stock up on pretzels and beer.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:30 am 63. jerry:

hollywood:

What kind of work do you do that you would know how these kinds of documents are handled?

Old Man: I guess you never worked in the five sided funny farm. We don’t sign for anything unless its special access and copying is pretty much uncontrolled. My policy is if they make me sign for it, I don’t want it.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:33 am 64. Knucklehead:

Regarding “who leaked and why now”…

The current administration knew the investigation was ongoing and would have some level of detail – who, why, when at least. It is, after all, their job. JD is an executive department.

There are two possibilities regarding the Kerry team:

- they really were in the dark until recently (I don’t buy this since according to Clinton “everybody knew about this” and is backed up by the quick reaction of Clintonistas coming out of the woodwork to stand by their man Sandy. It just seems to me it would be the sort of thing that would have been the subject of whispering rumors among those “in the know”, it’s been going of for months, after all. Nothing like this remains a long term and complete secret. If, in fact, Kerry didn’t know then he really needs to be questioning how much support he has from the DNC and any Dem should be shaking their head and wondering what their party is doing here. So I tend toward believing

- the Kerry Camp knew the basic outlines of the thing and just recently realized the lid might blow off at any moment

- the Clintonistas claim they knew.

- any number of insiders for who knows what reason. Maybe a Little Dog unwilling to take the fall while a Big Dog sleeps soundly, maybe a perfectly honorable whistle-blower sort, maybe FBI trying to damage NSC, who the heck can say so that’s not much fun to play with.

That leaves us with Kerryites, Clintonistas, Bushies.

Bushies would want this card for as late in the campaign as possible. They’d want Kerry to go merrily along with Berger as an adviser – get more foot in the trap before springing it, so to speak. But if they had good reason to believe either the Kerryites or Clintonistas were going to poke a stike into the thing and trip it for the purpose of damage control, then springing it at least partially on their terms makes sense.

As someone above pointed out, any leak from Kerryites would have been for damage control purposes and they would preferred Friday for news cycle reasons unless, of course, they figured doing it that way would point to openly to themselves and damage their ability to claim, “we didn’t know” (man, it must really hurt to have that as one’s only response to this). But this seems too devious and risky by half, so it doesn’t seem likely.

If the Clintonistas are as diabolical as I give them credit for, springing this “not too soon but not too late” makes reasonable sense. Don’t want it lost ’cause then it might not damage Kerry enough but don’t want it too close to election ’cause then it might damage the whole party too much. So, let it rip, send out the usual suspects to stand up for Sandy to let him know “your family will be taken care of”, trust us, but it had to be this way and let it run for a week and then have something handy to pour on troubled waters at the convention or immediately after.

I’m writing off the Kerryites. Those dopes are giving knuckleheads a bad name. I put my wager on the Clintonistas even though its only a steenking $2 bet and there’s no way to figure out if I win or lose or get paid off anyway.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:35 am 65. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m not a successful mystery writer like RLS, (too many “Roger”s around here and you Brits just stop tittering) but I’m a pretty successful mystery reader, and I follow “true crime” stuff to some extent. As a result, I’m very suspicious of a “grand conspiracy”: you can’t keep conspiracies quiet for long, and the best conspiracy theories almost always depend on complicated schemes and amazingly obscure and improbable inferences.

Real crimes, on the other hand, almost always come from greed or a moment of emotional stupidity. There’s one playing out in Utah right now, where there’s a missing woman, and we’ve just found out that her husband hadn’t been admitted to medical school, or even graduated from college. My prediction is that we’ll find out one of two things: either the husband killed the wife because he couldn’t bear to let her know he’d been lying to her, or the wife ran because she couldn’t bear to face her family with the false med-school story around.

Sandy Berger looked, on TV, like someone who knows he’s really really fucked up bad. His voice was trembling, his face looked ashen.

So here’s another prediction: we’ll eventually find out that those copies of that after-action report had some kind of handwritten notation that was personally damning to Berger or more generally damning to the Clinton administration. Something like “but what about bin Laden’s plot to hit the World Trade Center again” — it’s got to be big enough that it would be terrifying.

Having seen it, Berger was so frightened of the implications of it getting to the 9/11 Commission that he acted irrationally, thinking he could cover it up and no one would notice, or that he was a big enough dog that he was immune from consequences. Maybe he rationalized it by figuring if it did get out, it wouldn’t be until after Kerry was elected, and Kerry would protect him.

It’s too dumb and clumsy to be a conspiracy, and the rest of this is futile coverup, like an accident-prone cat on a linoleum floor.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:41 am 66. Mike_Nargizian:

Arafat wasn’t “democratically” elected. Hitler was at least democratically initially elected though it was a Parliamentary thing so his party got like 30-40% I believe.

Afatrat wasn’t as undemocratically elected as Saddam recently was or Stalin but pretty close.

What’s incredible is how the NY Times phrased the Bush Election in 00 but phrase Afatrat’s election as “democratic” in 1996.

You would think Arafat was democratically elected and Bush and company stole the election.

THIS IS THE STATE OF THE LEFT WING AND NY TIMES IN AMERICA TODAY!! ORWELLIAN DOESN’T EVEN DO IT JUSTICE

Mike

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:45 am 67. hollywood:

Jerry,

I’m a lawyer. I wasn’t speaking of Federal classified docs, just the way confidential material is handled routinely in the litigation context.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:46 am 68. Mike_Nargizian:

NY TIMES ENTRY -

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/002972.html

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:46 am 69. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

“n my experience, the way you handle this is to photocopy the original, make redactions on the copy and provide the redacted copy to the requesting party.

Then, if there’s an issue, a neutral (judge, mediator) reviews the original in camera and decides whether to release the unredacted material (in whole or in part) to the requestor.”

I fail to see how this materially changes my, admittedly, knuckleheaded speculation.

Berger could have made redactions rather than stealing the docs. No argument there. He could have done anything, he was the one with the choices. Of the choices available to him, and none of us know the full range, the one choice he didn’t make was “open up as much as possible as far as possible for the good of the country”. Whatever choice he made wasn’t that one. We also know that, of the choices available to him, he chose one that had something to do with trying to something off the table of potential subjects for scrutiny by the commission. Those seems to be the only “known knowns” at this point.

If he merely redacts and someone calls him on “why did you redact this from a draft” or “why was it important to redact the identity of the person making this redacting commentary” or “can you redact a bit less”, he’s got to be subject to some form of “review” and/or “mediation” as well as political pressure.

He wouldn’t want a “redaction” action in the same way he wouldn’t want his notes grabbed so he stuffed them down his longjohns. Once one has made a fundamentally risky choice (try to hide classified info from some smooth operators and honest injuns) then the choice becomes how much risk to take in the hiding and how much risk of discovery to leave behind. “Losing” the documents entirely is a valid choice for “risk management” here.

Depending on the “mission” at hand, the decision at the moment of choice may be “I’m in for a penny and they’ll have to drag the rest of the dollar out of me a nickle at a time if they are smart enough” or the choice may be “if I’m in for a penny I might as well be in for the whole dollar right up front”.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:52 am 70. OldManRick:

Jerry,

That shows the difference between industry and government. I work in the Aerospace industry (now on a program with DOD secret, but formerly on SCI projects). If you want an SCI copy, the security department makes the copy, creates a record of the copy, and you go and sign out your copy from them. If you don’t turn in every thing you signed out, there is a small inquisition. There are audits, briefings, awareness all the time.

No wonder you call it “the five sided funny farm”. I have hear the closer you get to DC the more lax the standards become. I’ve been at CIA and DIA HQ and have seen some of what you are talking about.

Rick

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:54 am 71. chuck:

Charlie (Colorado),

The Mark Hacking “leak” has driven all the Berger stories out of sight. It must be a conspiracy.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:57 am 72. Rick Ballard:

Charlie(C),

“His voice was trembling, his face looked ashen.”

Maybe orange isn’t his color?

I agree with your analysis of the original act. Sheer stupidity and venality account for the vast majority of misdeeds. A former “Big Dog” sitting amongst the minions in the archives may have given himself “Big Dog” status again by playing ‘cover Bubba’s butt’ one more time.

Bubba’s chuckling dismissal of his National Security Advisor as a bumbling doofus who needed a keeper doesn’t do much for the “protect the legacy” theory. He’s pretty much telling the world that while Old Yeller was an dear, loyal and close companion, it’s time to pick up a shovel and take him out behind the barn.

Wonder who got detailed to deliver the Tom Harken line.

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:07 am 73. Knucklehead:

Charlie (Colorado),

A very valid possibility. A “Holy shit! How did this get in the file!?!?” moment, followed by some feverish thinking and note taking while some level of panic builds followed by a really bad choice made under duress. Rather than go away and hope whatever he discovered was not discovered by anyone else, he tried to think his way out of it and went all haywire.

Maybe. I tend to believe that people capable of handling the pressures of jobs like being NSA and getting put on the hotseat time and again by a bunch of political sharks and hacks in congressional hearings is not prone to panic and even when feelings of panic arise has sufficient self discipline to get them under control.

You’re point is certainly valid but I still think this is more like:

Bill: “Sandy, I need you to do this…”

Sandy: “That could be a suicide mission, Boss”

Bill: “Don’t be silly. Piece of cake. How many times have we done this sort of thing? Even if it goes wrong we’ll handle it, don’t worry about it. Now be a good soldier and do your job.”

later….

Sandy: “I told you this could be a suicide mission!”

Bill: “Hey, you’re the one who screwed the pooch here. But don’t worry, we’ll take care of this and we’ll take care of you and we’ll take care of your family. So you don’t get any more fancy jobs in government and, instead, you just fade away and play golf and do no-show, hi-pay consulting gigs for some of my friends. Is that so bad?”

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:12 am 74. Fresh Air:

From a Time 2002 story:

“I’m coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is. I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”

ÔøΩ Clinton National Security Adviser SANDY BERGER, to Condi Rice, January 2001

Here is an excerpt from the 9/11 Report (p. 179)

“Clarke’s staff warned foreign terrorist sleeper cells are present in the U.S. and attacks in the U.S. are likely.” Per footnote 34 as described on p. 518, this comment was contained in the after-action report.

Getting warmer…

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:14 am 75. Rick Ballard:

Knucklehead,

I wonder if a meeting with Web Hubbell has been arranged?

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:16 am 76. Knucklehead:

Rick,

One would suspect that the list of country clubs which make special arrangements for Fallen FOBs would be well, manageably short and the foursomes rather chummy.

Since we’ve been somewhat lyrical here lately, how ’bout this….

Oh Sandy, the aurora is risin’ behind us

Well he ain’t my boss no more Sandy

Sandy, the angels have lost their desire for us

Sandy the aurora’s rising behind us, the pier lights our carnival life forever

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:21 am 77. chuck:

Knucklehead,

Actually, it reminds me of a paragraph in The Gulag Archipelego where Solzenitzn talks about intellectuals undergoing interrogation. How they think they can outsmart the interrogator, and are always trying to be clever and invent good stories, and end up tied in knots. His advice was to stonewall, pick something simple and stick with it.

It always amazes me that smart folks think that they are somehow skilled at deception, as if it were an automatic side benefit of braininess. Learning to be a good liar takes time, I expect, and coolness. No amount of cleverness will do the trick without experience, especially if one is feeling panicky.

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:23 am 78. Rick Ballard:

chuck,

Have you read Faulkner’s trilogy on the Snopes family? I find Solzenitzen rather impenetrable at some points in the Archipelego because I don’t have personal references with regard to some societal issues that he uses in framing his story. I don’t know if Faulkner still resonates with all age groups but for me he remains untouched in describing the human condition at its most base.

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:38 am 79. wxjames:

Berger and Bruce Lindsey accompanied Clinton when he testified before the 911 commission. I don’t know when that was. Where’s the time line man when you need him ? Wouldn’t you like to squeeze Lindsey’s head in a vice until he spilled everything he knows ?

Well, I would, so if the need arises, let me know.

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:41 am 80. chuck:

Rick,

No, I haven’t read trilogy. Actually, I have only read one short story by Faulkner (blush), and I don’t even remember the title. These days I don’t feel much urge to read fiction unless it’s really basic throwaway entertainment. The authors know who you are. Was there a particular incident in the trilogy that you had in mind?

Jul 22, 2004 - 11:54 am 81. Charlie (Colorado):

Knuck, I wouldn’t say you it was impossible, but I still think it’s low probability.

Clinton’s “good ol’ boy, yuck yuck yuck” response seems to me to be about as immediately reliable as anything else he says.

Holly, I’m curious: what kind of law do you practice? (No, this isn’t me setting you up for something, I’m really curious. I put a real email address on these things if you want to respond that way.)

Jul 22, 2004 - 12:19 pm 82. Rick Ballard:

chuck,

“Was there a particular incident” Not at all – I reread it every five years or so, always more for its totality rather than any singularity. Although, the horse passing through the house does tend to stick with me for its comedic value. In these times perhaps ‘Cryptonomicon’ is a better suggestion.

Jul 22, 2004 - 12:50 pm 83. hollywood:

Charlie (Colorado):

I defend civil rights cases against the City and the cops.

Knucklehead:

Blew me away quoting (well, slightly mis-quoting, but still pretty close) Springsteen.

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:07 pm 84. chuck:

Rick,

I liked Zodiac, Snowcrash, and The Diamond Age, but Cryptonomicon was too much for me. Too long, too involved, too, well, unbelievable. I like the short, tight, cynical novels of Vance as a contrast, I will miss him.

There was a deer here that went through a school building. It panicked, jumped through the glass front doors, went clip clop down the aisle to the other end, and out through the rear exit. Perhaps Faulkner’s incident was based on a true story.

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:09 pm 85. Charlie (Colorado):

Holly: “I defend civil rights cases against the City and the cops.”

In LA County? Wow, that must keep you busy.

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:16 pm 86. Knucklehead:

Hollywood,

“Blew me away quoting (well, slightly mis-quoting, but still pretty close) Springsteen.”

Do tell? Had it never ocurred to you that I might know some little things about the pier lights and carnival life of which Mr. Springsteen sings?

As for “mis-quoting”, well,… I took precisely one literary liberty with one word – a small word, I swear – from the lyrics from his “official” website. I admit to trusting but failing to verify. Oh well, when one roars from one’s cage one is apt to step out over the line from time to time.

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:28 pm 87. hollywood:

Knucklehead,

“when one roars from one’s cage one is apt to step out over the line from time to time.” So, you were Born to Run?

Charlie (Colorado):

Well, the taxpayers can either pay on the front end and get more boots on the street to do the job right, or they can pay on the back end with lawsuits. Guess what we’ve opted for so far?

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:35 pm 88. hollywood:

Incidentally, Knucklehead, as long as we are OT, what did you think of the Boss printing one of Gore’s speeches onsite?

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:37 pm 89. Rick Ballard:

chuck,

Agree with your assessment but we’re drifting perlously close to Starbuck’s territory.

Remember, DtP’s motto is “It is better to be feared than loved.”

I wonder if he worked for the IRS ar one time.

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:39 pm 90. PeterUK:

Rick,

“Wonder how JohnJohn are sleeping these days.”

A John’s relationship with his John is a John’s own business

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:43 pm 91. Kevin P:

Roger:

Since Solzhenitsyn was brought up I suggest that you read “November 1916, The Red Wheel Knot II. It tells the tale of a military officer that goes to the city to improve the battlefield conditions during WWI. He gets involved with the Salon revolutionary set. While I was reading it the unintentional comparisons to the NY Times crowd dicussing the WOT was chilling.Very nuanced,full of themselves and completely out of touch and worthless.More concerned with slogans and their own internal politics then with achieving anything. A bit long, but not quite as depressing as the Gulag trilogy.

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:47 pm 92. chuck:

Rick,

“It is better to be feared than loved.” But best to be tickled. Is it Friday yet?

Yes, DtP, just what *is* your relation with pier lights and the carnival life?

Holly, who cares what artists think? They are entertainers, not thinkers.

Jul 22, 2004 - 1:47 pm 93. Syl:

Chuck

“who cares what artists think? They are entertainers, not thinkers.”

I certainly don’t care for what they think if I’ve paid for their art, not their thoughts. On the other hand, some people think and do art. We’re just realizing we’re in the swamp and it’s big and we’re small.

Warning: Self promotion and 250k image.

As for the timing of the Berger thang, I’m SURE it’s someone on the Democratic end. Look how the story died after the 9/11 Commission report came out. Seems to me the lead was planned just for that reason. A couple of days then Poof.

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:06 pm 94. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie (Colorado):

Well, the taxpayers can either pay on the front end and get more boots on the street to do the job right, or they can pay on the back end with lawsuits. Guess what we’ve opted for so far?

Hmmm. Do you end up defending the police?

(I have to admit that my experiences with police leave me on the other side more often than not.)

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:12 pm 95. Knucklehead:

I thought nothing of it. I had no idea he’d done any such thing until this very moment when you enlightened me (once again I find myself trusting but not verifying). I am an admirer not a follower.

I am aware, however, of Mr. Springsteen’s general political views. We’ve had similar discussions recently here at Roger’s Place and I am squarely in the “shut up and sing” camp on this issue. The man’s extraordinary talents for creating popular music and entertaining an audience are obvious – to me at least.

In matters of politcs, however, I know a fair bit of the world Mr. Springsteen sprang from and sings about and very little of the world he inhabits now beyond a level of geographic understanding and infrequent, but telling, exposure. I suspect Mr. Springsteen has “lost touch”. I find I can reach out rather easily at any time and touch, or at least observe (one is well advised to keep one’s hands to oneself), the people and places about which Mr. Springsteen sings and recognize what has changed and what hasn’t over the past few decades.

One of us sometimes has to render judgement of that world from mundane locations such as a jury box while it is doubtful the other is called upon for such services.

All that said, I have only three devices with which I am able to “cast my vote” and use each as I deem appropriate. The three are, of course, the ballot box, my feet, and my “wallet”. You may easily guess which of those three Mr. Springsteen no longer receives no doubt causing him endless consternation and loss of sleep. My admiration for the talents I mentioned above, however, remains undiminished.

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:14 pm 96. hollywood:

“Do you end up defending the police?

“(I have to admit that my experiences with police leave me on the other side more often than not.)”

That’s what I do.

Cops are like most folks. There are good and bad. The problem is most of us don’t know them and only encounter them in difficult situations, often leaving a bad taste. When you get to know some of the good ones as real people, not just uniforms, they can be pretty engaging. This was a surprise to me given my leftist leanings and knee jerk reaction to cops.

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:24 pm 97. PeterUK:

TedM Do we believe this?

Holly: “I defend civil rights cases against the City and the cops.”

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:36 pm 98. chuck:

Syl,

Agreed, I was a bit short. Artists say and opinionate as they please, indeed they won’t be denied. Some I find insightful, some not. I think we agree that their opinions are not thoughtworthy simply by virtue of their talent in music, art, whatever.

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:40 pm 99. hollywood:

What the hell, Knucklehead, take a peek. http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html

Springsteen’s abilities were likewise overwhelmingly apparent to me as well upon first seeing him and the E Street Band touring in support of the Wild, The Innocent and the E Street Shuffle. They were the opening act for Dr. John of all people. I hadn’t felt the same electric feeling since the time years before when I saw Janis Joplin do three songs accompanying herself on an acoustic guitar. But I digress…

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:43 pm 100. chuck:

Hi Syl,

Thanks for the link. It’s always fun to see a bit about the real people behind the posts. And I to think animals — cats, dogs, etc. — have a degree of self awareness. They look in my eyes and ask and coax and adjust to my ways. Wonder what they see?

Jul 22, 2004 - 2:55 pm 101. Rick Ballard:

chuck,

think heaped food dish

Jul 22, 2004 - 3:06 pm 102. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, folks, I think it may be coming out.

Here’s an interesting link.

There’s a quote from the 9/11 report in it:

46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,ìTimeline,îAug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralstonís mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).

Jul 22, 2004 - 3:08 pm 103. chuck:

Charlie (Colorado),

Hmm. But that is an earlier after action report. I thought the one’s Berger took were the Millenium after action reports. Of course, there were always the shocking speculations as to the timing of the Afghanistan attacks. Is that what you suspect? Or are you referring to the timing of the leak?

Rick,

Well, seriously, I think it is more than just food.

Jul 22, 2004 - 3:43 pm 104. Charlie (Colorado):

I just looked at it very shortly, based on a link from Glenn Reynolds. But given the confusion over what has or hasn’t been lost, along with the business about the unavailable after-action report, it looks very curious.

Jul 22, 2004 - 4:23 pm 105. Syl:

Chuck

Heh. Yeah…big egos in some of our animal friends. But they haven’t a clue about the world in general…just their little part of it and not much of even that. Kinda like some LLL folks I know, though I attribute innocence to the animals.

Jul 22, 2004 - 4:24 pm 106. chuck:

Charlie (Colorado),

As I read the link, is says that the widespread speculation as to the reason for the Afghanistan strike would draw attention to Berger and the missing after action report, and then the whole sorry mess would come out. So the leak was a preemptive one to get the story out before the report. Sounds logical, anyway.

Syl,

The thing that fascinates me is that one doesn’t have to go down far in the scale of animals to once again find nature everywhere, red in tooth and claw. And by the time one comes to the level of the insects, human “civilization” is practically meaningless. Pets are somewhere in between.

Jul 22, 2004 - 5:00 pm 107. Syl:

Chuck

I don’t believe in the blank state stuff or the communing with nature stuff, or anything like that. I agree that the socialism and communism stuff is all destined to fail because of the nature of man.

However, neither do I believe that nature is ‘bad’. It is neither ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ it just is. An animal doesn’t believe it’s wrong to kill yet does it anyway, it just kills. Nature is dangerous to everything in it and is neither paradise nor evil. I’ve offended many friends by stating my belief that animals are better off in zoos. Heh.

But man can believe something is ‘wrong’ and do it anyway. Beyond the fear of punishment for jumping on the couch, a dog doesn’t carry moral beliefs.

But mere survival is the most important…whether it is your physical survival or your company’s. And in that man is one with nature.

All MNSHO anyway.

Jul 22, 2004 - 5:37 pm 108. chuck:

Syl,

“animals are better off in zoos. Heh.” Feh, that’s transparent flame bait. Though you can of course make the argument. Cats, I would guess, probably average 3-5 years in the wild if they survive the first year. The concept of good and bad is part of what people are, so this isn’t an escape from Nature in my view, and I would guess that anyone who grew up on a farm 100 years ago accepted killing, both of pesky critters and livestock. I do think dogs have at least some of the social capacities: shame, guilt, remorse. Thats why they are dogs instead of cats. Bad dog means something, bad cat means “what the hell, I better get out of here.” Carnivores in the wild have to kill, otherwise they die, so its just business, as the Don would say.

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:25 pm 109. Sandy P:

Rich Lowry today, also posted on statue at LAX:

…”I think we were mugged by Viacom,” Lehman told NRO in a phone interview on Thursday afternoon. “Because they changed the release date of the book and geared up 60 Minutes to launch his book to time them with his testimony and they edited his book to take out all of the criticisms of Clinton from his [original private] testimony. Because they wanted to make it a jihad against Bush.”

Lehman says that Clarke’s original testimony included “a searing indictment of some Clinton officials and Clinton policies.” That was the Clarke, evenhanded in his criticisms of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, who Lehman and other Republican commissioners expected to show up at the public hearings. It was a surprise “that he would come out against Bush that way.” Republicans were taken aback: “It caught us flat-footed, but not the Democrats.”…

—-

curioser and curioser, was the “searing indictment” also on the memos????

Jul 22, 2004 - 6:31 pm 110. Terrye:

Just imagine the ranting and raving we would all be subjected to if Condi Rice were caught stashing classified papers in her girdle.

Perhaps one of the reasons copy and original is an issue is legal liability. I work in health care and I know that if it is not documented it did not happen and if the documentation is not an original it is suspect in terms of the law.

Jul 22, 2004 - 8:23 pm 111. Charlie (Colorado):

This is about as off-topic as it could possibly be, but …

“Just imagine the ranting and raving we would all be subjected to if Condi Rice were caught stashing classified papers in her girdle.”

… I was actually wondering about this today: does anyone really still wear girdles?

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:34 pm 112. Timothy Lang:

Who leaked it?

Clintonistas, Kerryites or Bushies?

My guess is none of the above.

Perhaps…a basically non-political National Archives staffer.

After all, plenty of them seemed to know what was going on…one of them thought it was time to tell.

Or two of them were having a few beers, moaning about security breaches and were overheard…

I’m a notoriously messy person, but I’ve never come home and on undressing exclaimed “Howdydoody! How did this manila folder get in my shorts!” or “Lord! Me socks are full of memos! Better plug in the shredder!”

If this was 1864 rather than 2004 Sandy would be in an internment camp or worse.

Yeah, probably worse…hanged within a week.

Jul 22, 2004 - 10:39 pm 113. DennisThePeasant:

Rick Ballard-

I have never worked for the IRS. I’ve met a few IRS agents, and I don’t think I would have fit in…I lack their compassion.

Jul 23, 2004 - 3:45 am 114. beth:

There seems to be some interesting speculation going on in the media (not MSM) that besides the two instances of missing documents (terrorist camp and millenium plot) that things have gone missing from after action reports on WTC1 and Aiding of Al Queda during Bosnia/Kosovo. Seems someone is awfully interested in keeping their version of history intact.

Jul 23, 2004 - 7:02 am 115. jerry:

Beth:

I doubt that there is anything about AQ in the Balkans that is missing. That information is widely available in both classified and unclassified sources. Supporters of the 1999 Kosovo war have spread enough disinformation about the Serb 1998 counterinsurgency campaign that there is no need to cover it it up. There is a constant convultion of “ethnic cleansing” that occurred during the 1999 war with a relatively clean CI campaign conducted by the VJ against Islamic extremists that makes a Clinton cover up unnecessary.

Jul 23, 2004 - 7:26 am 116. beth:

I don’t think that this is about covering up. Cleaning up better explains what they were doing——trying to preserve their testimony in public that they were tough on terrorism and that their policies were the right ones.

Jul 23, 2004 - 7:41 am 117. richard mcenroe:

Jerry ó That’s exactly the problem ó now we’ll never know, since we don’t know exactly what Berger stole. We don’t know what lies or coverups he was trying to conceal, or why, or for whom. This will be conspiracy theory heaven for years to come, especially if anything untoward ever happens to Mr. Berger…

Jul 23, 2004 - 8:12 am 118. hollywood:

Maybe we will know “the document.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040722-115441-5005r

The odd thing is if this piece is correct it would seem Clarke would be the one who’d want to remove the after action report, not necessarily Berger. Curious. Is Clarke just smarter than Berger?

Jul 23, 2004 - 8:22 am 119. Pat in NC:

I have never had a position requiring security clearance so am unsure of what the routine is. When I have had input on some position paper, the original statements were copied and distributed to those who were to give input, discuss and then develop the final paper or report. If this was confidential material, the copies of the draft would be collected and then the final draft written. There would be original first draft(s) and an original final paper. Are steps similar to this used when high security clearance is involved? If so, the copies of the first draft may have had comments written on many of the copies of first draft while the pristine original first draft would not. Am I understanding what others are writing?

Jul 23, 2004 - 9:57 am 120. Charlie (Colorado):

Pat, you’re more or less right on track; there’d be some number of copies made and distributed for comment. It’s just as TS CODEWORD documents, they’d be numbered and tracked.

It’s extremely unlikely that many — or any! — copies of the hand-annotated copies would be made, as that would imply creating new controlled documents, which is known in the trade as “a pain in the ass”. Consider that (by more or less the same rules I described above) a copying machine ends up classified at the combined classification of all the material ever copied. (I’d bet NSA or CIA could recover a lot from the copier drum of any xerographic copier or printer, which means you declassify them the same way you declassify a highly classified disk drive: with a thermite grenade.)

Yes, this does mean that you might very well have copiers for different “compartments”, if only because at these levels the only person who is cleared for all the compartments is POTUS and maybe DCI.

This makes it seem perfectly plausible to me, by the way, that Berger was removing and concealing the only copies of some documents that included the hand-written annotation. I don’t think I’ve ever gotten around to saying that explicitly.

Jul 23, 2004 - 10:24 am 121. PeterUK:

There was an outcry in the UK not long back when someone denied seeing a briefing document,unfortunately an initialled copy was found.How much attention would the researches to something like that or would they be looking for broader issues?

Historians spend a lifetime examining such minutiae,often the question is not what it is, but who knew.

Jul 23, 2004 - 10:55 am 122. Syl:

Terrye made it!!

Welcome back!

Jul 23, 2004 - 12:09 pm 123. richard mcenroe:

It now seems that Berger did in fact purloin documents that the Commission did NOT get to see…

Jul 24, 2004 - 6:54 pm

Write a Comment

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