July 21, 2004
Wretchard writes:
The Berger story will make it impossible to post until a sense of its extent emerges. The story of the former National Security Adviser stuffing classified material pertaining to the 9/11 terrorist investigation into his pants and socks is like an opening scene into a larger show; the vestibule into a darkened mansion; the trailer to a movie we are half afraid and half compelled to watch. [link]My guess is that the story will turn out to be a Disney comedy of bumbling and incompetence. Clinton seems to have hired only lightweights who would make him look smart by comparison.
But what mainly occurs to me is that the coddling of Democrats by the media is not helping them. Just the opposite. It's been pointed out how unfair it is; If Condi were caught pilfering secret docs, there would be banner-headlines, she would be forced to resign, and Democrats would be howling for impeachment. But that's precisely why Condaleeza Rice will never be in such a mess. She knows she's in hostile territory, and any misstep will bring a savage attack.
My guess: Life in the Clinton Administration taught Berger that you can break the rules without fear of serious consequences.
Update: David Frum makes a similar point:
The Democrats are not well served by the media bias in their favor. Irritating as conservatives may find these quadrennial orgies of positive publicity for the Democratic nominees, any Democratic nominees, conservatives at least know not to believe it. Liberals though find themselves being whirled about by their own spin until they are dizzy...[Frum actually read the Newsweek piece on Kerry and Edwards. He found it more revealing than the authors probably intended.] Posted by John Weidner at July 21, 2004 08:29 AM | TrackBack
...I sometimes think that Democrats suffer from the same problem as ultimately felled Saddam Hussein: They cannot trust their servants to report the truth.
No link to Frum? That's mean.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 21, 2004 12:17 PMJohn, I don't think this was "bungling." Go to rantburg (if it ever comes back up) or instapundit to see descriptions of what's involved in using the National Archives even if you're dealing with non-sensitive material, or what happens to rank-and-file military who mishandle classified material much less than Mr. Berger apparently did, on multiple occasions and with apparent premeditation and malice.
(I think the relevant comment on rantburg said: "I knew someone studying for a test who took some classified documents to his hotel room to study them for the night; he wound up being stripped of rank, sentenced to Leavensworth, and given a bad conduct discharge.")
(For that matter, you could ask my Dad about procedures he had to deal with way way back when he was working for the ASA, back when there was an ASA).
Posted by: Phil Fraering at July 21, 2004 02:38 PMLink fixed.
I know about the strictly enforced rules for ordinary folk. But I have a hunch many rules weren't emforced for the elite in the Clinton years, and that Berger got used to that. As witness that the Natl Archives staff seem to have "mentioned" the problem to Berger first, and only later took action. If Joe Schmoe was suspected of pilferage, they would have had the FBI after him the first suspicion. Or so I guess...
Posted by: John Weidner at July 21, 2004 02:52 PMIf I understand the description of what he took, as relayed by instapundit and the Washington post, it looks like it was more than pilferage or forgetting: it was deliberate taking of all copies of specific documents.
While you're right that there's a "l'etat, c'est moi" attitude involved, it's not that the rules don't apply to him, or that he has the right to forget and lose stuff... it's that he thinks he has the right to edit the national archives to his advantage.
Posted by: Phil Fraering at July 22, 2004 05:50 AMI didn't mean that he was not intentionally doing wrong, but that it wouldn't have seemed like a big deal to him, because he was used to a culture where you were allowed to get away with stuff.
So the theory that he had to be trying to conceal something HUGE, because he wouldn't risk his career on anything less, is not convincing to me. I suspect he's sort of like Martha Stewart, breaking rules for money she had no need of.
Posted by: John Weidner at July 22, 2004 09:13 AMHeh. Were you punning, John, when you called doublewide Berger a "lightweight?"
Posted by: Alan Sullivan at July 26, 2004 07:30 AMMy unconscious mind is very witty...
Posted by: John Weidner at July 26, 2004 12:03 PM
