The Great Socks Controversy continues, despite Berger’s lawyer’s denials:
Reports CNN’s Bob Franken: “Three law enforcement sources talking to CNN’s Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena [say] they saw him [Sandy Berger], or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks.”
Saturday Night Live, where are you? This would be funny were it not so blood-curdling. As I understand it, these documents Berger “inadvertently” (to the tune of about 70pp) took home from the archive on more than one occasion were about blowing up LAX. That happens to be my home airport. My friends and family fly through there on a regular basis, not to mention a gazillion other people. To laugh this away, as Clinton did, is beyond juvenile. It’s creepy. (via: Daily Dish)
MEANWHILE: MK wins the Best Blog Headline of the Year So Far (at least from this blog). Maybe he should write for SNL.
This sounds naive, I know. But isn’t it possible, just possible, that Mr. Berger was actually taking notes (and docs) in an effort to crystalize his thoughts to help the 9/11 Commission?
Gimme a break, Hollywood. That’s what the reading room was for – so they could review the docs to prepare their testimony
Every other witness managed just fine without stuffing documents into their clothes in order to get them past security.
hollywood:
Despite my cynical attitude about the penalty to be dished out and my belief that this was a CYA exercise for Bill Clinton I will give you the right answer. If Berger wanted to just “refresh” his memory he should have (1) have his notes checked for classified information and brought back only UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO notes. (2) Make several more trips to the reading room to ensure that he has his information straight. He obviously didn’t want to spend the time because he is so important.
Your explanation is believable and highlights why Kerry should not be elected President. He would bring a bunch of oh so important smart people like Berger into the National Security world and we, the American people, would suffer the dire consequences of their arrogance.
It would be more believable if some documents had not gone missing.
Hollywood-
Yes, it is possible that Mr. Berger was doing as you describe. That doesn’t make his actions any less criminal, though.
And for him to remove documents then “lose” them…frankly, it’s almost beyond belief. What did he lose? Does the National Archives have copies on file or were the documents he stole and destroyed…lost…whatever…were those documents unique?
Incredible.
Hollywood:
Hollywood, I am going to shock you by saying that the whole sock issue should be retired. Because at this point it is beyond discussion that whether in his pockets, crotch,base off the spine, or in his socks, Berger intentionally took documents and notes out of the secure room even though he knew full well this was a severe violation of procedure, a procedure that guards our secrets and ends up sometimes saving lives.His lame spin that the documents “inadvertently” got mixed up in other papers is being abandoned by everyone, including many liberal bloggers.Now we need to know what happened to the ones he “lost”, who they were given to, and if possible what info did they contain.
Hollywood–In the absence of other evidence, I tend to agree with you. Conspiracy theories aside, there are some other aspects about the incident that require further explanation before I completely satisfied. These will probably dribble out over time–but please don’t lose sight of the damage that Berger could/might have done had these documents fallen into the wrong hands–especially if they involved methods and sources. Pure of heart motivations do not cancel out that kind of damage. Jerry is right on target: arrogance coupled with stupidity.
jerry,
I pretty much agree with your first paragraph (although I don’t have insight on the Clinton aspect).
Like you I am also a cynic and therefore I disagree with your second paragraph in that I feel we have some similar oh so important arrogant folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now. So I ascribe no points to either candidate based on this.
Well there is a Fall TV show coming out about LAX. Maybe Berger was working on research for the show.
He started thinking about Heather Locklear,……. well let’s just say he got sticky fingers.
We got some real professionals here….
Note added emphasis.
“Three law enforcement sources …[say] they saw him [Sandy Berger], or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks.”
Well I wonder. First off, how could ANY law enforcement source have seen him do that? None were in the reading room, afaik.
So it is only second hand at best. Three law enforcement sources saying the same thing from how many sources? And who actually saw him?
So all the commenters here who have clearance experience have given us the scary possibilites. Now how about the other side?
Assuming that Berger is a decent patriotic American who is not passing docs to the enemy, and assuming that he is also not totally unmindful of document security, what is the possibility that these docs, though stamped ‘codeword’, actually contained nothing that could really endanger our security. That if they had, perhaps he would have been double sure not to leave with them.
How rigorous is the classification process with regard to never over-classifying docs?
By someone who has used the archive,via Instapundit
“You are not allowed to bring in briefcases, or binders, or even your own pens or pencils. You are not allowed to wear a jacket or clothing with more than the normal number of pockets. They are extra sensitive to loose clothing. I had some notes that I drafted before heading up (listing what I was looking for). Those were reviewed by security, time and date stamped, and logged in before I was allowed to go further than the front entry hall. The manila folder (not envelope) they were in was taken from me (I had the option of renting a locker for it, but chose to throw it out instead). When I left, I was searched (though they didn’t pat me down) and the papers I had were checked to ensure they were the same ones I entered with.
I can see how one would want to bypass this,but why remove more copies of the same document?
Tano,
Here’s the money quote from the link Roger provided:
Reports CNN’s Bob Franken: “Three law enforcement sources talking to CNN’s Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena [say] they saw him, or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks.”
Kinda raises a few questions, I know. Maybe it means that some other person in the room told the law enforcement sources or one of them that that’s what he thinks that he saw. Maybe someone did not see what they thought they saw.
Barry, that’s funny. If we’re gonna go off topic, all I can say is that Richie Sambora is one lucky guy.
Tano:
So it is up to the individual to decide what security rules to follow.As long as he has good motives then it is ok to decide on his own when to follow procedure and when not to. Of course I guess you would not mind if government officials used the same mindset when it came to following wiretap regulations , or the privacy rules on IRS returns. As long as the person was a good guy you would not mind if he ignored the regulations on getting a warrant to tap your phone. Because, lets face it, rules are ok but sometimes you need to ignore them, as long as your heart is in the right place.I agree.Lets give Berger back his security clearance because I trust his judgement on when to follow regulations and when to give them the finger.
Let’s posit that Berger is absent minded, and that he just wanted to work at home. He is also 57 years old. He is old enough to know and compensate for his weaknesses. Messy, disorganized? Don’t bring classified material home where it might disappear. It’s like not driving at night when your night vision starts to go, just good sense.
Hollywood, the “everyone is equally bad” argument gets really old. It was old 40 years ago. Lets hold some folks to absolute standards.
Tano–I do not for a second suspect Berger of passing documents to a hostile power. If you are asking if all government documents are over classified, some undoubtedly are;–this document, however, was presumably a codeword document which ordinarily pertains to what is called specially compartmented intelligence. In some cases even the codeword itself is classfied to the highest level of the contents therein. I would infer from the subject (after action report of security precautions) that is probably evaluates terrorists reponses to US security precautions and would, of necessity, involve the sources and contacts. In either case, however, if the document is NOT recovered, one has to assume the contents are compromised, and that creates major problems for anyone involved in the program. In short, it IS a big deal from that aspect alone–political or other motivations notwithstanding.
Kevin,
Here is a novel concept. Why not take my words for what they are, rather than reading into them what you might want them to be.
I had no intention of excusing Berger. My question was to the point of whether we really should be driven to conclude that there has been some serious breach or whether there is a fair chance that no real harm was done. Coming to that conclusion does not excuse the act, it merely would clarify the consequences of the act for our security.
Chuck,
If everyone is equally bad, some folks are more bad than others. I see no reason to get into naming names.
The chances that Sandy Berger was unaware of classified document-control procedures is zero, nada, zilch.
As this May 17, 1997 memo reveals, Mr. Berger, as the president’s National Security director, was the point man for the government response to the Report of the Commission On Protecting And Reducing Government Security. The report is devoted to the process of handling classified documentation.
The subject line of Berger’s memo:
SUBJECT: Report of the President’s Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy
Bullets 5 & 6 of the memo and the last paragraph:
5. The NSC will coordinate an interagency group to address improvements needed which are identified in the report on the part of the NSC, SPB, ISOO and agencies, particularly with respect to senior level guidance for, resources applied to and efficiency of classification and declassification.
6. The SPB Staff should provide me a progress report by August 31, 1997.
The Secrecy Commission’s report is an opportunity to harness good ideas and accept valid criticisms to improve our security and make our efforts more efficient. It requires open-minded, cooperative interagency action. The NSC staff will participate and we will keep the President informed of your progress.
Samuel Berger
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Quite ironic.
Tano:
I take your words as they are. If you were not providing cover for Berger you might have prefaced them by saying that Berger was wrong to take them out, but here is some other thoughts, They way your words are written it sounds like an excuse for Berger, not an exploration of alternative ideas. Next time if you are more clear, I would have a better sense of where you are coming from.Back to the main point.Even if what he took out was Clintons recipe for chicken soup he should follow procedure. If there was something he thought was classified top secret for no reason then there are procedures for that. If he was uncovering dirty secrets there are whistleblower laws that protect people who are doing the right thing for the people. The reason we have lap tops missing from Los Alamos is because people there , some with good intentions, were ignoring procedures a la Berger, and taking them home. When a former NSA chief decides he is to big for the rules we have trouble. I have no idea whether the notes and documents were sensitive or trivial.None of us do. I doubt that Berger handed them over to Saudi Arabia or China but I don’t know.We need to find out everthing even if it only leads to firming up procedure so that our archives are not open secrets.Whether Bergers motives were political, financial or just lazy I don’t know. But so far the answers he is giving thru his lawyer smell like yesterdays garbage. Instead of making assumptions on whether he is patriotic or not lets have Berger get up, tell everthing, and face the consequences.
Security policy violations are not excused away anywhere by ex post facto judgements of “oh, no real harm was done”.
Period.
I had no intention of excusing Berger.
I believe that.
There you were, sitting there at your computer not excusing Berger, and the thought came to you out the thin blue:
“Gee, I wonder to what extent the government routinely overclassifies documents…especially documents relating to national security and terrorism/counterterrorism.”
Yep. I can buy that.
I’ll bet that’s exactly how it happened.
At the risk of encouraging Tano I would like to point that the apologists for the Rosenbergs like to say that their motives were pure, the USSR was our ally and we witholding important military information from our democratic ally Stalin was wrong so the Rosenbergs were just patriots trying to right a wrong against ours friends.
I don’t think Berger is a traitor for doing this, he is just an arrogant fool who was part of an adminstration that let terrorism get out of hand.
Kevin, as usual you are right on the mark.
This whole business is a black mark on Berger. No one else really loses out. Of course the ABB crowd loses a few days of Samuels 1001 cuts because Berger is taking up all the air.
The thing I wonder about is why the sudden reemergence of the Clinton Spin Team. They are all over the tube. Familiar old faces. Why is Sandy Berger so important that the first team has been called out? On the surface, this imbroglio only blackens Berger and no one else.
The other group who is losing out on this are the defenders of Berger. They have nothing to gain on this and only lose credability by trying to spin this away from what it is. A stupid, dumb act by a man who hasnt held a public position in almost 4 years..
Jerry–I did respond to Tano’s question at 2:44 above–My experience with SCI ends in 1987. You might want to check what I said to see if reflects current government policy. And my point about possibly jeopardizing methods and sources is exactly what the “big dogs” like Berger don’t consider when violating the policies. Thanks in advance.
If everyone is equally bad, some folks are more bad than others.
Does the above read (within context) as stupid as I think it does, or am I having an episode?
RogerA:
The biggest change from 1987 is the acknowledgment of the existence of the National Reconnaissance Office. The second component of SCI was intertwined with the NRO. Once we brought the NRO into the white world the compartments became more widely disseminated and the digraphs were declassified.
The cleanup process is going to be a little more difficult now because it relies on Bergerís, Kerryís and potentially unknown peopleís honesty. I suspect we will never know what happened to the documents because we can not take Bergerís word for it..
TedM,
It’s a cunning ploy to take the heat off Joseph C Wilson.
Thanks Jerry–that would be my fear as well: a prudent program manager would have to assume the worse–this is not a good time given political conventions and a national election to put an SCI program involving counter terrorism in limbo–Thanks, Sandy!
DtP
Yes, it reads as illogically as you think it does.
Tano and a soulmate…… marvelous.
Dennis,
Yes.
No.
I think the hoe is called for.
TedM-
I think the first team is out because the first team has more information regarding the investigation and the documents in question than we do. Bill Clinton has always been extraordinarily sensitive to his ‘legacy’, and while Berger’s present stupidities are his own, the fact that Berger is at best a moron cannot help the Clinton legacy. There is something in those documents that meant a whole lot to Berger, and it would be a reasonable guess that whatever it is, it will reflect on Clinton as much as it does Berger.
I also think that the first team is out because the Democrats sense a real possibility of damage to the Kerry campaign. Not that Kerry or the campaign has had anything to do with Berger’s antics, but by the fact that since dropping the anti-war themes in his campaign, Kerry has tried to sell the American people the idea that he could better manage foreign policy than Bush. It’s not a bad strategy, but you need to be able to convince you have high caliber professionals at your disposal.
At present, Kerry’s ‘advisors’ (formal and informal) tend to undercut that idea pretty seriously. Joe Wilson and Sandy Berger are of the stuff to lead us to perfect harmony with the rest of the world? I don’t think so. It now appears neither should be cleared to handle twice burned matches. Add Dick Clarke and you basically have The Three Stooges…this is not inspiring confidence.
And don’t think the Republicans don’t know it and won’t use it.
DTP:
Regarding the I am not excusing Berger thought. Watching Clinton discuss the Lewinsky saga he would start out by saying”This is not an excuse for my actions, then go on a 30 minute screed about the incredible pressure he was under, about how Ken Starr was just a “bad guy” who was undermining the fabric of Democracy in America, how hard his life was, how “alone” he felt.One would almost think after listening to him that only St. Augustine or George Washington could stop themselves from taking advantage of what Lewinsky was offering. Then at the end of his excuses he would state “Of course I am not making excuses for my behavior”
Peter-
If this keeps up I’m gonna run out of effin’ weeds.
Kevin-
Very true, very true. Actually, were I think Tano wants to go with this is a variation of the “what the definition of ‘is’ is” defense…reclassify the classification of classified documents until the classification is that they weren’t really classified as classified in the first place.
If you know what I mean.
kevin:
George Washington probably couldn’t of restrained himself either. Check out his expenses in the now famous National Archives…
Well, its seems that RogerA is the only one here who both knows how to read the english language, and is not so partisan-obsessed as to be able to think about and respond to a simple question regarding the security implications of Berger’s act. For that I thank him.
For the rest of you, I take your unwillingness or inability to deal with the issue as a tacit admission that the doom scenarios are not so likely. If that is the case, then there is really nothing left to talk about except how bad a guy Sandy is. Which is all you seem interested in doing.
“George Washington probably couldn’t of restrained himself either. Check out his expenses in the now famous National Archives…”
But would Washington have taken the files?
Tano:
It must be so hard for you to stand being with among all the simple minded idiots on this blog. It is so noble of you to put up with such a group of inferior savages so you can teach the nuanced brilliance of the superior being known as Tano. I almost think that I should not even show the arrogance to print out your name. From now on I will print out T–o so as not to risk the wrath of God for showing such rudeness. Thank you for suffering so long with rubes such as us.
Oh Tano, have you sunk so low? Did you really think you were going to win by changing the subject and calling names? The smarter Dems all jumped ship, but not you. Oh no, you’re going to go down with the ship. So heroic. So sad. So used. So forgotten.
Thats a nice, though trite, little riff Kevin. I would remind you though, that this began with me asking a question of those who, I acknowledged, have more knowledge and experience on these matters than I do. And though my question was quite specific, and totally partisan-nuetral, most people here, including you, could not get past the “berger bad” idea to deal with the far more important and interesting (at least to me) questions of what are the security implications for the nation.
I dont really see how that is an example of whatever it is you are accusing me of.
This sounds naive, I know. But isn’t it possible, just possible, that Mr. Berger was actually taking notes (and docs) in an effort to crystalize his thoughts to help the 9/11 Commission?
Holly, dear, the definition of “top secret (codeword)” is “information that presents an extremely grave risk to national security if disclosed, to be restricted to a very small number of people, and conveyed only through written authorization and highly secure means.” The legal definitions of how that’s to be handled, and the penalties for breaking the rules, are defined by 18 USC 793(f). (You can read all about it that Instapundit, where I cribbed the legal reference anyway.)
Now, it happens that I’m one of the people who defined how this stuff is done; I wrote a number of the navy handbooks on managing trusted computer systems, and have a number of publications (some classified, some not) on this whole thing of managing classified data. I have a mathematical understanding that even most people working with it don’t have, so I think I’m qualified to explain how it works.
Classification level — like TOP SECRET — is a simple ordering: (TS) > (S) > (C) > (U).
The “codeword” is called “compartmentalization”. The “code word” part is just that random, meaningless names are assigned to the compartments. In fact, the classifying authority has computer programs that assign a code word from a list of unused words by random number generation. So some of the code words might be, say, “charlie”, “jerry”, and “hollywood”. You get cleared (“read into”) a compartment, which gives you access to that material. So you could be cleared for TOP SECRET (HOLLYWOOD), or SECRET (JERRY).
Codewords are additive: if Berger saw information that was TOP SECRET, and information that was codeword HOLLYWOOD and codeword CHARLIE, then his notes are automatically classified TOP SECRET (HOLLYWOOD)(CHARLIE). Until he goes through a formal downgrade process, this classification is automatic and legally binding.
(There’s a third aspect, distribution limitations, like NOFORN — no foreign distribution — but that just adds a little extra seasoning, it’s not really important.)
When Berger took notes during his session in the reading room, the notes themselves become classified at the level of the highest classification document he read, with all the codewords of all the documents he had access to. Since he’d been doing work at the highest levels of classification for tens of years (you don’t get to be National Security Advisor without having worked in codeword stuff for years beforehand) he knew the rules.
So, yes, it’s entirely possible that he was taking notes to focus his mind on the things important to the 9/11 Commission. But when he took those notes out of the room without the formal downgrade process, whether he took them out in his shorts, his socks, his jacket pocket or his briefcase — as he ahs already admitted he did — he committed a felony, and one that it’s completely inconcievable to me that someone with his background could do “innocently”.
“Well, duh” wouldn’t be an adequate defense for a file clerk cleared for that material; it’s a ludicrous attempt at defending someone who was the President’s top national security staffer.
DtP
If you are having an episode, than I am having one too.
I donít address either hollywood or Tano because I realize that I am already classified as a prop in a fantasy ideology on display regardless of quality of my argument or value of any supporting evidence.
I believe it was Dorothy Sayers of Lord Peter Wimsey fame who observed that one can prove anything if one discards enough of evidence. QED.
If everyone is equally bad, some folks are more bad than others.
That’s a sentence that truly deserves to be preserved in lucite as an example to others.
Tano,
you used two assumptions to make room for a possibility?
You can “assume” anything, and if you assume enough, then anything is possible… It doesn’t make anything close to factual though, and cant be used as a basis for any argument that is anything than hypothetical.
As the saying goes: “Never assume anything, because when you assume….” I’m sure you know the rest…
There’s another saying in my part of the world: “If it hadn’t been for ‘if’, I’d be King”.
If assumptions can be used, then what about assuming the counter-scenario: Assuming that Berger is not a patriot, and is passing information to the enemy, and assuming the documents contained the blueprint for protecting the US from terror attacks, is it then a possibility that this might be a huge security threat?
It’s a novel concept, just like yours, and just as valid logically. Is it worth a serious discussion?
H-wood:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
-Animal farm (George Orwell)
This was very informative, Charlie. Thanks a million!
For the rest of you, I take your unwillingness or inability to deal with the issue as a tacit admission that the doom scenarios are not so likely.
Tano, poopsie, I do this stuff for a living. (See the little biographical note in my post to Hollywood above). As someone has already noted more than once, “Oh, gee, it wasn’t a very good diamond bracelet” isn’t a defense in grand theft by shoplifting cases. It might be considered as a mitigating factor at sentencing, but at this point Berger had admitted in so many words to committing a felony, one that had the potential of endangering the entire country.
So, in summary, I don’t think there’s an issue with which to deal, except for the outstanding one of whether you’re a blackguard or merely a fool.
Katherine,
It is possible that none of us are here,there is just Roger and his computer,or perhaps not even Roger.
This was very informative, Charlie. Thanks a million!
Bitte, gleichfalls. Thanks for digging up the Deutsch citations I was too lazy, er, busy to get for myself.
T–o:
Of course, as always, you are correct. I will work harder.Thank you for being so indulgent of my sloppy work.
jerry,
“I don’t think Berger is a traitor for doing this, he is just an arrogant fool who was part of an adminstration that let terrorism get out of hand.”
Would you mind if I appended the following coda?:
That he is a “trusted advisor on security issues” to JohnJohn should be reason to consider whether they have the collective brainpower to exit a closet.
DtP,
Does the above read (within context) as stupid as I think it does, or am I having an episode?
Listen, I just got an email from a friend in Lower Smackwit – it’s a hamlet in the Cotswalds – they’re offering a 3 pound reward for information leading to the return of their village … well, someone well known in the village. Anyway, I’m going to forward the comment and your reply and I’ll split the reward with you if it works out.
“you used two assumptions to make room for a possibility?
You can “assume” anything, and if you assume enough, then anything is possible… It doesn’t make anything close to factual though, and cant be used as a basis for any argument that is anything than hypothetical.”
Well duh….
Can I have an episode too?
What is wrong with you people? Of course it is a hypothetical. It was a question. Is that so hard to understand?
“If assumptions can be used, then what about assuming the counter-scenario”
Well duh,,,
As I said to begin my original question, since the discussion had already touched on the implications of many of these counter assumptions, what are the implications of the assumptions I put forth.
So, just to be clear here:
Berger says he destroyed these documents? How do we know that this is true?
Berger says he misplaced these documents? So now there are top secret documents out in the world that shouldn’t be?
Tano and Hollywood, do you consider what Berger did to be a gravely serious error? Is it worthy of punishment?
Charlie,
And you too eh?
Can you understand the simple concept that I was asking a question about the security implications of his act, not whether or not Berger was guilty?
Rick,
£3 seems a bit high,though I think Nether Burping paid £2.50 for theirs,don’t forget our saying “Every village has one”
“It is possible that none of us are here, there is just Roger and his computer, or perhaps not even Roger.”
Responding to entity calling itself Peter.
Well, yes, and how do we know that we even exist? Or that the external world is not just our internal perceptions? So, if there is no objective reality, then whatever Sandy did exists only as a social construct within the context of racist, homophobic and paternal civilization and cannot be objectively judged by anybody, even if anybody does exist, which is arguable.
Peace, brother (or sister?)!
Et Tu Charlie,getting quite Shakespearian.
“I believe it was Dorothy Sayers of Lord Peter Wimsey fame who observed that one can prove anything if one discards enough of evidence. QED”
Well hello Katherine, nice to meet you.
I like the quote. But it just struck me a bit odd that you begin with a hypothesis – that you have been classified somehow (by me?)- and therefor you decline the opportunity to test that hypothesis.
I guess one can prove anything if one declines to gather any evidence at all.
QED
From what I have read so far, it appears that not all the documents have been recovered. Second, these documents are specially compartmented intelligence (SCI) classified in accordance with the procedures Charlie outlined above. What should be happening now is a risk assessment based on the loss of those documents. It is that risk assessment that will determine what actions have to be taken because of the potential compromise of the documents. In my judgment, it is a grave breach of security with potentially significant consequences for the nation’s counter terrorism capability. Whoever leaked the information about the loss of the documents also exacerbated the security issues by making their loss public. So it seems to me both Berger and the leaker have participated (and probably unwittingly) is some very stupid activities that smell all the world to me like Washington politics. What a disgrace.
Katherine,
If only I could say that were true but I have no evidence and if I did, would have no objective means of assessing or knowing what constitutes evidence,if there is such a thing.
Daisy Daisy…
Tano, can you follow my point that Berger has committed a major felony whether or not something actually got disclosed?
Oh, it’s not as major as if the information actually got to a foreign intelligence service — you can (in theory) be hung for that one. But it’s on a par with bank robbery and attempted murder (ten years in prison.)
You may have a point: maybe nothing was actually disclosed.
I don’t care. That is not the issue, it’s an attempt to slip the punch. I don’t propose to fall for it, and I don’t get the impression much of anyone else is either.
(It is, however, a play that has had some success before: after all, there was a lot of smoke raised about the notion that perjury isn’t perjury if it’s about a blowjob. Now, I’m a big fan of blowjobs, and I think Monica was kind of cute — if she’d have snapped her thong at me I might have done her myself. But perjury is a felony, and it doesn’t stop being a felony because the perjuror was embarrassed to admit the truth.)
“Tano and Hollywood, do you consider what Berger did to be a gravely serious error? Is it worthy of punishment?”
Obviously it was a serious error. How grave it was is the question that I was trying to discuss. I am sure some punishment would be in order, at least according to the facts that have come to light so far.
RogerA,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that the investigation is long since over, and that the matter is now in the hands of the prosecutors. Which means the risk assessment must have been done a long time ago as well. Which further leads me to believe that if there were any grave consequences, things would not be proceeding quite as they are now.
“Tano and Hollywood, do you consider what Berger did to be a gravely serious error? Is it worthy of punishment?”
Obviously it was a serious error. How grave it was is the question that I was trying to discuss. I am sure some punishment would be in order, at least according to the facts that have come to light so far.
RogerA,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression that the investigation is long since over, and that the matter is now in the hands of the prosecutors. Which means the risk assessment must have been done a long time ago as well. Which further leads me to believe that if there were any grave consequences, things would not be proceeding quite as they are now.
It was illegal but seems uninteresting except for the embarrassment and entertainment value … unless the material itself is of interest.
York on O’Reilly is positing that they are drafts of a ‘scathing’ report on preparedness shortcomings during Clinton latter years.
Is this why the Clinton first team is coming out?
Peter,
Ontological discussion is generally discouraged at this site until after 11PM Pacific Standard Time. As is any reference to the “hermeneutics of suspicion” and/or the use of exegetical logic based on source documents.
OTOH, obviously eisogetic logic based entirely upon personal notions of “good” and “bad” is allowed but subject to derisive response. This is part of the longitudinal study of the boundary limits for the level of ridicule necessary to drive trolls back under their bridges.
BTW – you are real – I recognize the peculiar color of the vinegar stain on your tie – you’ve been to Mabel’s chip shop again, haven’t you?
Tano,
You have finally convinced us.you wrote “Obviously it was a serious error. How grave it was is the question that I was trying to discuss. I am sure some punishment would be in order, at least according to the facts that have come to light so far(tano)”
So we can all agree to that part. The graveness and charges are left to those in government who know more about the events and the legalities.
I declare an end to this.
PeterUk will second
Rick,
Not Mabels. That was Costas near Notting Hill Gate.
Word now is Congress is going to investigate Berger, if I’m not late with that announcement.
Tano, I think you’re right that the risk-assessment has been done, and — given I don’t have any other information — I imagine that they’ve convinced themselves either (a) that they’ve finally recovered all the documents (and no, they wouldn’t announce that) or (b) that the documents are no longer recoverable or wouldn’t be legible if they were recovered. (This probably includes a number of hours spent by CIA guys with boots and rubber gloves sifting a landfill and cursing Berger.)
If not, if they’re afraid something actually was disclosed, then they’ve taken steps to ameliorate the risks: pulled out sources, changed codes, whatever.
Of course, at the very best, this means that CIA, NSA, FBI, and a bunch of other three-letter agencies have spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours on something other than protecting us from the bad guys. And at worst, it’s something like Orrin Hatch blowing the fact that we were intercepting bin Laden’s satphone calls. I can’t find the exact date when this was first mentioned in the open press (Katharine, are you listening?) but it either blew a source that could have prevented 9/11 or blew a source that could have let us catch the sonofabitch.
(And, sadly, this is evidence in favor of Jerry’s cynical view of the different rules for different sized fish.)
But you don’t get a pass on a bank robbery if the bank gets the money back after you are caught — and you sure as hell don’t get a pass if you say you mistakenly picked up the money but you lost it.
John Lynch,
Did he identify Richard Clarke as the probable author?
Now if there is some way to link Wilson, Berger and Clarke – imagine what a trifecta it would make! Perhaps all three will join JohnJohn on stage in Boston? Assuming that Wilson and Berger aren’t in custody of course.
Tano — If you rob a bank but don’t spend the money, you still robbed a bank. Berger stole highly classified documents. What he did with them afterwords could make the situation even worse but has bearing on the original offense…
OTOH, obviously eisogetic logic based entirely upon personal notions of “good” and “bad” is allowed but subject to derisive response.
Okay, you get the prize. You’ve not only used a word that I don’t know — “eisogetic” — but you’ve whupped three on-line dictionaries and google define.
What are you talking about?
Rick,
Bill asked Byron York directly about where he believed the draft reports came from. Byron asserted that they were written by Richard Clarke.
Bill asked several times about the veracity of York’s facts. York is standing firm.
Oh, and if you guys are going to keep talking about chip shops, could someone get me a steak and kidney pie? I can’t find a decent one out here in Colorado.
Rick Ballard — Yes, but does ontogeny really recapitulate phylogey or is it just going along out of peer pressure and self esteem issues?
Phylogeny. Damn.
Charlie (C),
I think Hatch’s blunder was just after Tora Bora. He figured Bin Ladin had flown the coop and wanted to make a splash on a Sunday morning show.
That raises the issue of intelligence briefings to and oversight by the legislature. I was agin it in the early ’80′s when it was implemented as a result of the Church hearings and I’m agin it now. Oversight should be an executive function and all Congressional responsibility should devolve on a joint committee (Representatives and Senators) of no more than seven individuals. Hatch proved himself unworthy of the responsibility and this is an area where trust and reliability are paramount. The current situation is simply too porous and the stakes are too high.
Rick,
Wilson, Berger and Clarke a very sixties sounding band.Now can we have a hanging?
No, Richard, it’s the first cup of coffee that recapitulates phylogeny.
I assume you all have already seen York’s article on this.
Richard: Oversight should be an executive function and all Congressional responsibility should devolve on a joint committee (Representatives and Senators) of no more than seven individuals. ….
I sort of agree with you. Constitutionally, oversight is a Congressional function, but it needs to be narrowed down a lot, and one Hatchian offense should be grounds for defenestration.
Hatch proved himself unworthy of the responsibility and this is an area where trust and reliability are paramount.
Yeah, like you said.
Right thats fish chips and peas all round and a steak and kidney pie,no salt and vinegar it gets in my circuits.
Do you guys mash peas, like they do in Germany?
Tano,
You used assumptions to construct a scenario to your own liking, put forward as a question. Then you tried to use the rethorical answer to get around those pexky facts and change the discussion to something totally unrelated.
“I guess one can prove anything if one declines to gather any evidence at all.”
That was exactly my point.
Charlie(C),
It would have been helpful had I spelled it correctly – it’s eisegetic not eisogetic. Eisegesis is the interpolation of individual’s determination of meaning rather than the acceptance of the text’s obvious (in most cases) intent. Sorry for the error.
Roger,
we need a new thread.
How about the disgrace of the General Assembly.
The Aussies stand up and get counted.
Peter, you Brits fell down on that one.
Charlie (Colorado)
The first and second defenestration of Prague were reserved for serious issues. I believe they had something to do with the price and availability of beer. As a form of capital punishment, it is usually reserved to such serious offences.
The Hatch offense may meet the seriousness standard but dilutes the effectiveness of the punishment to use it for internal governmental offences.
Rick — I’m going to claim I would have seen the comparison to exegesis and figured it out if the spelling had been right.
It seems unlikely, but it’s the best story I’ve got an I’m sticking to it.
You still beat two out of three on-line dictionaries, though.
In the UK we have those nominated Privy Councellors who are trusted with information and select committees who are I think vetted,but the run of the mill MPs don’t get a sniff of sensitive information if it can be helped.In general I don’t think many politicians can be trusted beyond the next soundbite.
John could we just defenestrate him enough to break a few things?
– donít address either hollywood or Tano because I realize that I am already classified as a prop in a fantasy ideology on display regardless of quality of my argument or value of any supporting evidence.–
Welcome to our world, Katherine.
Come and stay awhile, fantasies can be fun.
In the UK we have those nominated Privy Councellors….
So that’s what it means. Thank God.
Ballard-
Like none of us knew you meant “eisegetic”.
Come on.
Richard,
I’m a Burkean conservative (damn Lord North!!). Haeckel’s law is risible on a First Cause basis.
Faith is the greatest gift, one has received it or one has not. There are other fora more adapted to this discussion and I choose not drag this thread further offline than I have already done. My apologies to other posters.
–Eisegesis is the interpolation of individual’s determination of meaning rather than the acceptance of the text’s obvious (in most cases) intent.–
It depends on what the meaning of “is” is???
Here, now, Rick, don’t bail out: we’re on a roll.
Although I’ve got to admit that, as a devout Buddhist, I’m going to get a little lost in the apologetics here, but it’s always good to stretch a little.
Charlie,
Peas are not intentionally mashed, but the chip shop variety are traditionally dried peas and go “mushy” after they have been cooked a while.
TedM
Australia,it was OK when I was there in 1973 what have they done to it?
Right. In Germany they actually purposefully puree the things.
It’s actually quite good, oddly enough. I’ve missed out on the British mushy peas, though.
Haekel (and his law)
Rick/Charlie-
You’re making this thread sound like Starbucks in the evening.
Knock it off.
Rick / Charlie –
I second DtP. This sounds an aweful lot like deconstructionism to me — a doctrine that never did get past my bulls–t detector. (One of my theories is that when someone says something incomprehensible it invariably means: (a) he doesn’t understand the concept and wants to sound smart; (b) “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls–t;” or (c) he is trying to preserve his job by using a vocabulary that nobody else understands. If you can’t say it in English, don’t say it).
OK, amusement ends. Resume the recreation of If the Sock doesn’t fit, we must acquit.
Party poopers.
A couple of questions: why does Berger have these high clearances years after he left government?
Did he have a need to know? Even if you have the requisite clearance, you cannot access classified material if you don’t have a legitimate need to know. I don’t think covering up a screw-up counts.
The odds are that this was not a dangerous security breach. But there are reasons it might have been. A former National Security Advisor might be worth keeping an eye on for some hostile groups. That advisor’s trash might get regular picking through.
Berger says the documents were destroyed. How? A shredder? There are computer programs to take scanned shreds and turn them back into a document. Compared to the work that went into Venona (which would be a lot faster today), this is utterly trivial.
Burned? Yeah, right. Tossed in the trash? Most likely – especially if it were inadvertent.
Berger needs to be prosecuted for every crime he did, and there may have been several (taking classified material off premises, improper disposal, failure to report lost material, etc). Let the justice system work.
Find out who else may have had access. Did someone ask Berger to do this? If so, we have a conspiracy and another criminal.
Charlie (C) defenestration
John Moore–
As I understand it, Berger was acting as Bill Clinton’s representative in vetting official White House papers (there were over 9,000 pages to be cleared) before providing making them available to the 9/11 commission. I suppose he would have been given a temporary security clearance for that task.
It would be interesting to know if this sort of thing has been done in the past.
It would also be interesting to know why the investigation has taken so long. Seems pretty simple to be taking three, four, six months or whatever. Perhaps the trail has led somewhere?
Ben-
Now you’re sounding like Starbucks.
John Lynch-
If the Sock doesn’t fit, we must acquit.
Somewhere, Tano is sitting at a computer going “Dammit, I should’ve thought of that.”
Of course, he thinks you’re serious…
Hah. Clearly I managed to out-obscure you guys, even if only with my sense of humor.
Call it a window of opportunity.
Did he have a need to know? Even if you have the requisite clearance, you cannot access classified material if you don’t have a legitimate need to know. I don’t think covering up a screw-up counts.
Since he was being asked to testify in detail on the 9/11 stuff, that would probably constitute need to know. As far as the clearance goes, there is such a thing as being cleared by executive order; I doubt very much that there would be any question of maintaining a clearance for a former Special Assistant for the NSC.
Betcha he doesn’t have that clearance now, though.
Charlie, here are the sources on Hatch the Leaker, but if you have more archival work for me to do it will have to wait till tomorrow
.
BTW, this leak business is standard operating procedure and apparently we managed to give ourselves away to AQ on more than one occasion (cue for Clintonian laughter ñ what a joke! We are simply sloppy, know what I mean, nudge nudge, know what I mean?)
From Insight magazine, Nov 2. 2001:
“The most damaging leaks appear to have taken place long before Sept. 11. One was a 2000 report that U.S. intelligence was intercepting al-Qaeda terrorist chief Osama bin Laden’s satellite-telephone conversations and keeping track of his whereabouts within a 30-meter range by tracing the signals. The leak, intelligence officials tell Insight, had devastating effects in the hunt for bin Laden.
(snip)
The worst operational leak after Sept. 11, sources say, came not from the Pentagon but from a senator who just had received a classified briefing, prompting President George W. Bush to restrict full intelligence access on fighting terrorism to only a few leaders in Congress
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=138298&
Identity of the leaking Senator:
From The Las Vegas Review-Journal
September 14, 2001
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, raised eyebrows this week when he commented that U.S. intelligence had intercepted communications Tuesday suggesting terrorist Osama bin Laden’s organization was involved in the attacks. Several years ago, monitoring of bin Laden telephone conversations dried up after the U.S. intelligence effort was leaked and reported.
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/lasvegasreviewjournal091401.html
DtP
Sorry, I can’t control what Tano might think, and it is actually a misquote of the article Roger posted so I can’t claim original credit for my misquote.
Not to hijack (I hate saying that when it is clearly my intent to do so to get you all’s input on this) but has anyone seen Nuke’s in Iraq?
Charlie (C),
Your think your comments explain a lot about the timing and the leak.
1. It took a lot of time to verify the loss of the documents or make adjustments.
2. There were a lot of folks POd at Berger.
DtP,
“You’re making this thread sound like Starbucks in the evening.”
I did quit as I stated I would. However, Ben you are charged with eisegesis in the first degree. The Edmund Burke Society will hold trial tomorrow at 11:30AM. You are advised to present yourself for examination and judgement, don’t pack a bag but please bring 22′ of 1″ Manila hemp as well as approximately one cord of dried faggots. Lunch will follow the trial (at 11:55), so please feel free to order whatever fits your hearts desire (this is an old Burkean custom).
Katharine, thanks, you’re brilliant again. So Hatch only kept us from catching the SOB.
I guess that’s a little better.
DtP
Accusing me of “sounding like Starbucks” is fighting words where I live. You have a bit of a drive on your hands to get to the closest one — a bit better than an hour. We are, unfortunately, afflicted with an NPR station (more accurately, a transmitter from one that is about 80-100 miles away). Oh well, there is no Eden.
Rick –
I’ll plead insanity. OR, maybe I’ll just say that I make no apologies for seeing things through the lens of my own bias. After all, if Tano/Hollywood, et al. can do it, why can’t I? In any event, can we defenestrate something afterwards?
About the time it’s taken to investigate and the timing of the leak:
Perhaps the investigating authorities had given Berger a chance to come clean by a certain date, and Berger has opted not to comply.
Scaffolding on the way.
–Eisegesis is the interpolation of individual’s determination of meaning rather than the acceptance of the text’s obvious (in most cases) intent.–
Is that sort of like a Straussian reading of the text?
Oh, damn, I know I shouldn’t feed the trolls, but hey:
Tano
The security implications range from nothing at all to having a suitcase nuke flown into LAX.
Which one do you suggest we prepare for?
OT
BTW, Mansoor Ijaz tells all about Sudanese offers to extradite bin Laden….. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Can we stage a Defenestration of NPR? I used to listen to NPR once in a while when classical music was played. These days they can barely squeeze any in between all of the left wing political commentary and the new age music (both of which sound about the same to me, in that neither one seems to go anywhere). I’m sure it wouldn’t take long to find plenty of announcers who should be thrown out of windows. . . .
My dear Ben,
“can we defenestrate something afterwards?”
Your use of “we” and “afterwards” makes an exegetical response problematic. Certainly, we (the Burke Society) would have no with a subsequent denestration. But I fear that (based upon your text) this is not your intent.
Charlie (Colorado) -
Your post on the mechanics of classification levels was textbook…and a tremendously good read.
I believe the question of ‘how serious was it’ will eventually be answered in court. U.S. code is pretty specific, and whatever room there was for quiet negotiation is quite gone.
Your post on the mechanics of classification levels was textbook…and a tremendously good read.
Thanks. The mere fact that I couldn’t hear snoring through my monitor surprised me, so I take this as high praise.
(But shouldn’t that be my exegesis, based on the rest of the thread?)
“would have no with a subsequent denestration”
OK, you guys have gone far beyond my level.
Reports are coming out that Berger was reviewing records of the Clinton Administration’s anti-terror activities for the 9/11 panel.
At the request of Bill Clinton.
No wonder Free Willy’s laughing.
Let’s see, if somebody big (oh, just thinking out loud-for example, Clinton) wants access to secret documents, who does he get to take them? It’s either got to be somebody really good (who won’t be noticed) or a total klutz (that everyone says is sloppy and a mess, so it’s no big deal). If you can’t find anyone good, it’s gotta be the klutz. Easy to cover for. Kind of like Uncle Leo from Seinfeld stealing books from the bookstore.
Tano–I believe you are correct about the risk assessment already being conducted–Charlies post pretty well sums up my views.
Re the Denefestration of Prague: as I recall that in addition to starting the 30 years war, the Hapsburg rep to Prague was saved by either the hand of god after he was tossed (that would be th Holy Roman Empire’s interpretation) or that he landed in a pile of dung.–the latter would be a much better outcome for Berger and whoever leaked the story.
“John could we just defenestrate him enough to break a few things?”
Charlie, if you mean to break a window during the process it can sure be accomplished. Other breakable things would be the gentlemen himself if he is unlucky to hit the hard ground.
http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/defenestrate/meaning.html
On the other hand maybe we should restrain. People falling out of the windows bring unpleasant memories.
*sigh*
See, that’s what I mean about my sense of humor.
Honest, folks, I knew what “defenestrate” meant from the first, really; have since I read Arthur Clarke’s “The Defenestration of Ermintrude inch” in the ’60′s. And while I won’t claim that the defenestration of Prague was the first thing on my mind, I used the word consciously, or something very much like it, when I was looking for something that sounded both drastic and kind of funny.
When I said “defenestrate him just a little”, I was going for the same joke as “a little bit pregnant”, along with maybe an image of a middle-high window in a split-level house.
I even tried to pun back to it, when I said it was a “window of opportunity”.
So, you don’t need to send me any more links explaining what defenestrate means. I mean, thanks for the helpful thought, but it’s okay, I got it.
Charlie,
See what happens when you manage to “out-obscure us, even if only with your sense of humo”r?
Sorry, Charlie I really did not think you would use a word that you did not know. Since I was doing this archival thing this evening, I thought to be witty and added a link.
I was trying to make a joke, and then I was struck by the memory of people falling out the windows.
I apologize for being lame.
All,
What Tano said.
Erik,
At last, someone with a sense of humor.
All,
I keep feeling like I’m being jumped into a gang but can’t seem to make it. Am I supposed to stand in the circle while you piss on my leathers?
The scandal is widening. There are unconfirmed reports of a third sock…
Interesting WaPost article mentioned on Drudge.
I don’t know for certain if this is the meat and taters his blurb references, but it’s contained in the middle of the second page of the article up right now:
“At the end of the day, Archives employees determined that that draft and all four or five other versions of the millennium memo had disappeared from the files, this source said.”
So there’s no record of the drafts of the original millenium report.
It was all political? Just a deep CYA?
Mission accomplished, Sandy. What’s a few months in Club Fed building office furniture compared to the Legacy, anyway?
The Post requires registration. The story is burined in the politics section if you have to navigate manually.
“All,
What Tano said.”
Holly,
what we said to Tano.
Ms. Wood,
Am I supposed to stand in the circle while you piss on my leathers?
This is a very open mimded blog. If the above statement is your wish, any number of us will cheerly commence an increase in our liquid consumption in order to fulfill your desire. Alternatively, you might try and buy a clue?
Charlie(C),
Sometimes a Spenserian hand will be understood and sometimes crayons on the back of Safeway bags is the only way to go.
Tmj,
The Clinon’s are a gift that keeps on giving.
I wonder who is charged with telling Sandy that Bill can’t pardon anyone anymore?
OK, Rick I am packing my crayons and leaving. So there!
Rick,
Not my wish, just an impression. I don’t buy clues. But I did try solitary Clue back in The Big Fix days.
As for Spenser or Spencer, not interested in The Faerie Queen or Social Darwinism.
“I don’t buy clues.” — Holly Wood
“I can resist anything but temptation.” — Oscar Wilde
Rick -
There’s nothing remotely useful for the party or Kerry in having the old gang trot out in front of the cameras. Just go ask Al Gore. There’s levels on levels on levels here. Like always.
I’m taking off early on Friday and heading wayyyyy out west into the Great Basin with food, water, a sleeping bag, some prospecting/rockhounding gear, a rifle or two, and some coyote calls.
Y’all get this stuff figured out before I’m back. Please. And DON’T pack the crayons away just yet.
“You keep walking into these things, donít you Baldrick” ñ Edmund Blackadder the Third
Katherine,
I doubt that you will ever see me direct such a statement to you. I apologize for the totally inadvertent slight and wish that it be understood that I read your posts with much grater attention than I give to most others.
Ms. Wood,
I don’t buy clues. That, my dear, is tautological. While completely understanding your interest in ‘The Faerie Queen’ as being allegorically linked to the discussion at hand, I believe that further examination on your part may give some elucidation on what I meant by Spenserian hand. Or not.
Thank you Rick, I hope you know I was very much joking. I fear that this evening I ended out-obscuring myself.
Katherine,
I thought you were but I prefer to give offence intentionally.
Speaking of obscuring oneself – do you know how hard it is to trim a beard when you can’t see yourself in the mirror? It’s costing me a fortune to have it done weekly at the barber but I almost slit my own throat shaving. I’m sure glad buzz cuts are still in vogue.
TOTALLY and UTTERLY OT
Charlie (Colorado) wrote
“You still beat two out of three on-line dictionaries, though.”
Have you ever seen edict? Nice little command line tool. A dictionary and a thesaurus.
I typed in “eisogetic” and it gave me “eisegesis” as one of the choices. Sweet.
Tmj,
“There’s nothing remotely useful for the party or Kerry in having the old gang trot out in front of the cameras.”
Not for the Democrat party, anyway.
Good Grief.
I think this thread sets some sort of record for interleaved weirdness, or eisegesis, or sumpn.
Charlie (Colorado) and Rick,
It is only shallow people who fail to judge by appearances–Wilde.
“This is a very open mimded blog.”
Rick,
A mime is a terrible thing to waste.
“do you know how hard it is to trim a beard when you can’t see yourself in the mirror?”
Rick – I should not ask, should I?…….
I hate to do this, but I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. Hot update on Berger from the WaPo here.
Berger is in deep do-do.
Rick,
Guess I’m suffering from Spenserian paralysis.
http://gracewood0.tripod.com/spenseroram.html
Fresh Air,
What do you read in this?
“He was examining the documents to recommend to the Bush administration which papers should be released to the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”
FA,
Chuck Colson has had an amzing impact in a number of different ways since his release from prison. Perhaps we should chip in and send Sandy one of Chuck’s books? I’m sure he would appreciate it.
I hear flights of angels singing in the background – ci vediamo domani.
Same old, same old.
From the WaPo link:
”
‘”This is a terrible experience for him, and he’s embarrassed by his mistakes,” Lockhart said, “but I think he also feels a sense of injustice that after building a reputation as a tireless defender of his country that many Republicans would try to assassinate his character to pursue their own ends.”‘
It’s never possible for a Clintonite to do any wrong; it’s always Republicans trying to assassinate their characters. I wonder how long people will buy into this?
TOTALLY and UTTERLY OT
Charlie (Colorado) wrote
“You still beat two out of three on-line dictionaries, though.”
Have you ever seen edict? Nice little command line tool. A dictionary and a thesaurus.
I typed in “eisogetic” and it gave me “eisegesis” as one of the choices. Sweet.
Hollywood,
Sounds like there were some documents that he most emphatically did not recommend. To sensitive, you know.
WichitaBoy
New York Times is running the same spin. The story isn’t that Berger put extremely classified material in his socks, its that the Bush administration is seeking to disrupt the Democratic convention by persecuting poor Berger, who just made a mistake that has a sentence of 10 years.
You’ve got to wonder if Americans are ever going to catch on to the continuous dishonesty of the mainstream press, and realize that they are being fed propaganda, not journalism.
I suspect this spin may cause at least a few people to say “Wha….?”
From what we know, this man intentionally committed a number of crimes involving misuse of very highly classified material. A sign of intent and knowledge is his hiding the material in his clothes.
He isn’t an advisor, he’s a suspected felon. In fact, given the time, a truly inquisitive press would be asking why he hasn’t been indicted yet, and whether there are co-conspirators, and what his alleged motive was. And of course, if the press reversed its bias, they would be hounding Kerry about when he (Kerry) knew about it, and why did he let his advisor do this… and we would hear about it continuously throughout the convention (at least those so needing anesthesia that they listen to/watch it).
John Moore
I must confess I’m interested in the whole thing as a sort of mass psychology experiment. It’s incontrovertible that the man has broken some rather important rules. That’s a fact. But the fact jars the “narrative” of the ABB crowd. How will they react? It’s classic right-brain/left-brain dissonance.
It seems likely that the Clinton crowd are behind it. How will that perception play with those who were convinced or who convinced themselves that there was nothing wrong with their boy Bill except that he was a victim of the Republican attack machine? There was a fawning piece on him in the local birdcage liner today because of Clinton’s visit to the Tattered Cover yesterday. How would that have played given today’s knowledge?
It will be interesting to see what, if any, cracks appear on this one. It will be a presage for the response when we have a “major event” in DC or NY. A crack or two have already appeared just on this thread.
WichitaBoy
First – he didn’t break rules. He broke felony laws. Big difference.
To the Clinton Crowd, who always considered security to be something that disgusting folks like military and others used, this is going to be viewed as a minor mistake. The interesting thing will be how they deal with the clear intent shown by his hiding the material in his clothes.
What could get really interesting is if this is part of a conspiracy. We just don’t know the motive yet. But if there is a conspiracy, there’s no telling who can get caught up in it.
But the birdcage liners are already focusing more on the timing of the “leak” (I don’t know what the source was) than the substance of the charges. I suspect that will continue until charges are filed, and given the time lag, I don’t understand why charges have not been filed.
As you say, it will be an interesting experiment. I am mostly interested in the MSM. I have concluded that their bias may be the difference between win and loss for Bush, so I consider them something important to watch. I predict this story will fade quickly unless there are leaks or an indictment or arrest is made.
I am stunned to read this morningís New York Times headline:
ìWhite House Knew of Inquiry on Aide; Kerry Camp Irkedî
http://nytimes.com/2004/07/22/politics/22berger.html?hp
Oh my God, this newspaperís biased reporting and analysis is just getting ridiculous. It appears that literally they are trying to turn the Sandy Berger affair into a Republican scandal! Have they no shame whatsoever?
David
Yes, they are trying to turn it into a Republican scandal. The New York Times is a pure propaganda sheet. They are useless. As I write, I hear Newt Gingrich wondering why the NYT has gone nuts.
It’s simple. The NYT has zero journalistic integrity. They are a paper with a mission: prevent Bush’s re-election. They will lie and twist and spike to do it.
Their main use is to see what those who haven’t caught on are reading, which includes those members of the MSM who still use the NYT to tell them what the news is (per Bernie Goldberg).
I forgot to mention – same spin at the Washington Post.
Perhaps we should chip in and send Sandy one of Chuck’s books?
I don’t think he’s done anything bad enough to deserve that.
Holltwood ó Aw, you don’t have to wear the leathers…
Katherine -
I’m glad to see there is at least one other Blackadder fan here.