Berger's Disgrace Shakes Kerry's Campaign
Bad news for John Kerry: In its shamefully inadequate coverage of the Sandy Berger scandal, even the New York Times today admitted that he was an adviser to the Democrat presidential candidate.
Terry McAuliffe's favorite propaganda sheet, of course, merely mentioned the connection in passing, but fortunately Fox News Channel and other media are digging below the surface.
"I think the problem here is Sandy Berger is a close adviser of Sen. John Kerry, and there's a certain discipline you have to have in this business … We're all political animals ... we're all trying to get a leg up on the other guy" in an election, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told FNC. "Obviously, he's violated that discipline.
"There's an ethic here — that is of strict discipline, of not letting the fact you're working on a political campaign start to color your actions when it comes to national security," Hunter said.
Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said more information was needed before judging Berger, but "obviously, the timing of it is not good" for Kerry."From now on, until the election, everything like this will have a spotlight put on it, examined very carefully," Lott said.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., called the news "surprising." He told Fox that "unless we learn otherwise, I have to assume that what Sandy said was right — that any removal of documents was inadvertent. But it is serious."
Asked whether Kerry should dump Berger, the former rival said, "That's up to John Kerry, but I'm sure he will stay on the team unless there's some charges that are proven that leads Senator Kerry to do otherwise."
Other Clintonistas turned Kerryites rushed to microphones to defend Berger. Lanny Davis and Joe Lockhart ran to pro-Democrat CNN to gush over their former colleague, without offering any evidence of the innocence they insisted was apparent.
Insight on the News reported: "Anti-Bush activist and Kerry advisor Richard Clarke also stepped forward to try to defend Berger's actions as 'inadvertant,' though how he would know is not clear."
Democrat strategist Richard Goodstein insisted that Kerry should "absolutely not" boot Berger.
"The documents that Sandy supposedly took were copies. There are copies elsewhere throughout the Archives and elsewhere in Washington, so it's not like he was trying to cover something up," Goodstein maintained to FNC.
However, Ben Ginsburg, national counsel for Bush-Cheney '04, said what mattered was whether Kerry benefited from Berger's actions.
"That's an essential question that needs to be answered from the Kerry campaign: Did they benefit from documents that they should not have had?"
DEBKAfile reported: "Presidential challenger Kerry will have to think twice before attacking Bush on national security issues lest he lay himself open to reminders that a former Clinton aide and his own adviser was caught red-handed misappropriating classified materials that revealed how a Democratic president mishandled the threat of terror."
And then there's this tidbit: "Officials with the Bush-Cheney campaign point out that Berger gave a surprise background briefing to reporters on Feb. 27 on behalf of the Kerry campaign, in which he outlined airline security issues apparently drawn from the now-missing classified memos Berger is accused of removing from the National Archives," FNC reported.
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.
As for Berger's obvious angling for an invite to be CIA director in case of a Democrat victory in November, you can forget all about that now. |
