To go along with that: Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified PaperThe Washington Post
4/1/2005
dalythoughts.com
Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration’s record on terrorism…
The deal’s terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as “an honest mistake.” Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger’s permission said: “He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent.”
Just wow.
The terms of Berger’s agreement required him to acknowledge to the Justice Department the circumstances of the episode. Rather than misplacing or unintentionally throwing away three of the five copies he took from the archives, as the former national security adviser earlier maintained, he shredded them with a pair of scissors late one evening at the downtown offices of his international consulting business.
The document, written by former National Security Council terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, was an “after-action review” prepared in early 2000 detailing the administration’s actions to thwart terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. It contained considerable discussion about the administration’s awareness of the rising threat of attacks on U.S. soil.
There is still one extremely huge detail missing– why? What was so important to Berger that he did this?
Somehow, a misdemeanor, fine, and a temporary loss of a security clearance seems woefully inadequate considering that what he did directly impacted national security.
Update: I know that it was a busy news day, but I find it absolutely mind-boggling that it is not considered page-one material by some papers.
Flashback: CBS, in July of 2004, characterized the Berger story as a “partisan spat":
Adding to the partisan vitriol, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called Berger’s actions on Tuesday a “third-rate burglary” and a “gravely, gravely serious” threat to national security.
Partisan. Except for the fact that the allegations were true, and the documents were specifically relevant to the Sept. 11 panel’s work– directly impacting our country’s analysis of the events preceding the attacks, and as such directly impacting national security.
Update 2: I wonder what cooperate means here, and what further investigation remains:
However, a federal law enforcement official said a plea agreement calls for Berger to serve no jail time but to pay a $10,000 fine, surrender his security clearance for three years and cooperate with investigators. |
