Clinton is quoted as saying he knew about the Berger situation for several months. This means Kerry must have also.
Hugh Hewitt - What did Kerry know, and when did he know it?
Was Kerry aware that Berger had stolen classified documents, and that he was under investigation for the theft? Did Kerry accept briefings based upon these stolen documents? Did Berger brief others in the campaign organization? Was Schrum consulted on the upside of keeping around the target of an investigation? Did the Kerry people fail to see anything wrong with the pants-stuffing Berger?
Ask every question of Kerry that would be asked of Bush if Condi Rice had been caught pilfering state secrets from secure rooms for personal use and destruction.
The Berger scandal is accelerating faster than any scandal I can remember, from a buried three inch, page 17 story in almost all of the big papers this morning, to front web page this evening in the New York Times and the Washington Post (though far down the scroll). More details are spilling out all over the web (see FreeRepublic and DemocraticUnderground for the latest headlines and panicked reactions from within Democratic circles, respectively.) Captain's Quarters is unrelenting in unspinning the spin put out by the New York Times, which was working overtime to make light of the theft of classified information. Incredibly, Matthew Yglesias seems to think the biggest fall-out from this will be to clear Richard Holbrooke's path to the SecState desk. Joshua Marshall seems to understand that there's a big torpedo in the water aimed at the Kerry campaign. See questions in the first paragraph. Add these questions: Did the 9/11 Commission know about this and if so, did they question Berger about it under oath, or did the D.C. "circle-the-wagons-around-the-wounded-and-the-stupid" kick in? I have seen some reports that the Commission staff is saying this doesn't impact their report. Calling John Lovitz: Someone is impersonating you without a license.
Dennis Miller and I kicked this around on his show a couple of hours ago when we taped tonight's program. Miller may be the smartest cable host going, and he gave me a hard time on a number of items, but he's west coast not east coast, and resisted drawing the obvious implications. He thought there'd be no connection to Kerry at all beyond "stepping on Kerry's story" this week in the big run-up. That effect is huge as it gives media something to talk about through the endless hours of motions and reports other than John Kerry's Vietnam service and Theresa's tax returns. Recall the 2000 controversy over whether "rats" appeared in hidden fashion in a Bush ad? That was a major story, and the criminal behavior of Kerry's senior foreign policy advisor isn't?
There's much much more to this, as Berger's slap-dash --at best-- treatment of the nation's secrets in a time of war again underscores the Dems' fundamental unseriousness about national security. On issue after issue they speechify and then act irresponsibly. They attend Michael Moore premiers and change positions on Iraq weekly. There is no substance at all within their ranks, simply the manueverings of time-servers and pyramid climbers. Berger's antics underline this Democratic habit of subordinating everything to political advantage, and I don't think it is going to pass unnoticed by an American public that knows full well we remain in a war. |
