Did you ever make the "honest mistake" of "inadvertently" stuffing highly sensitive national security documents in your socks, jacket, and pants? No? Well, me neither. But Sandy Berger assures us that this is nothing more than being "sloppy." I don't buy it.

Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor for President Clinton, was caught taking classified material from the National Archives. This includes his notes on classified documents, as well as several classified documents themselves. Now Berger says he can't find some of the missing material.

One of the missing items is said to be a draft report highly critical of the Clinton Administration's handling of the Millenium Bombing plot. Sandy Berger doesn't know where it is now. This is troubling for a few reasons. First, the document is secret--it's not meant for non-governmental eyes. It's been compromised. No one knows where it is. Second, removing the document might have shielded current individuals charged with oversight and future researchers from information damaging to the Clinton Administration. Third, Republicans allege the document may have been used by the Kerry campaign in a political attack on the president.

There are more questions than answers at this point. But the whole idea of a National Security Advisor acting in such a slipshod or reckless manner stands as an indictment against those who entrusted him with such power.

“What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation’s most sensitive secrets?” asked House Speaker Dennis Hastert. That's what I'd like to know.

You're a regular Scully, Mols, but then if you check my e-mail, it is no great secret who I am.

The real secret, rather, would seem instead to be The FOX News website's source on the claim that Berger was "reportedly seen stuffing documents down his pants, shirt and in his socks." [sic]

This claim (and the shock-value of it) is all your latest post has added to the mix, Flynn. Without that, it's just the same old story.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the removal of any document or even a copy of a document from the Archives a felony?

Let’s see what kind of deal the Dems cut to get yet another Clintonista in document trouble out of this one.

Bill Clinton’s former National Security Advisor? Shouldn’t this guy be smarter than that or at least a bit more discreet than to be shoving secret papers into his pants? And this isn’t the first time!! These particular docs contained classified information regarding a terrorist plot to bomb LAX that the Clinton White House lackadaisically chose to overlook.

With their complete disregard for national security and our Constitution, it’s scary that these people, essentially, ran the country for eight years.

With the Clinton folks, you have a plethora of your favorite scandals to choose from.

Sandy Berger is a loser, scumbag, zero...He said this was an honest mistake. How can stuffing classified documents down your pants be accidental. If it was accidental he should be investigated for pedophilia....

Dear Gadfly:

You made your identity obvious by use of the 'le'. There is only one person I know who walks though life imagining himself as a character in a French film.

But anyhow: You accuse Flynn of being kneejerk antiClinton, but what is with your kneejerk defense of felonious activities just because a highprofile Democrat is involved?

Stop being a partisan shill -- perjury and pilfering classified documents are felonies. Especially when committed by powerful political players, such felonies deserve the public's attention.

By the way, I _would_ like to think of myself as 'a regular Scully', and I have left phone messages that start "Hi Mulder, this is Scully. The autopsy shows something interesting . . ." etc etc.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with politician bashing, be it Clinton or W., so I disagree with Le Gadfly's tactic of deflecting criticism simply as "bashing." For someone characterizing himself as Le Gadfly I would expect a bit more of a Socratic approach, at the very least an attempt to invite dialogue in a common pursuit of getting to the bottom of such questionable activities as Berger engaged in.

From what I can tell so far this is either a very bad thing Berger has done and he should be punished for his felonious actions . . . Or this is an *extremely* bad thing he has done. The first case would be if there are not actually any original documents missing and if the 9/11 Commission actually did have access to all the documents. This scenario is like what Dee Dee Myers was claiming on MSNBC last night, that he only took copies, not originals, that he had full access to them and was reviewing them to prep Clinton (legitimately) before the ex-Prez would testify, etc.

The second and worst case would be if it is true that he has actually taken original and even classified documents which are now missing. In that case he should be locked up for a very very long time and both Clinton and Kerry need to be investigated (sigh, not again!) to track down what happened to those documents.

The case is as Dee Dee Myers described it, and you all are tools, who are accusing me of being a shill. I can shuck and jive too. And by all means, let's dialogue. Here are my opening questions:

1.) If this investigation (vis a vis Berger) has been ongoing since October 2003, then why harrumph (a la Hastert) and hem and haw about it now (a la Berger who is being far too deferential), during the week of the convention and the week of the 9/11 commission report?

2.) How is this even an issue worthy of our attention at this time? The DOJ and the FBI are handling it. We hardly need those paragons of morality, De Lay and Hastert, to get involved now, do we?

3.) ...Hmmmm...just as the DOJ is handling another investigation into someone who made disclosures from the VEEP's office, affecting not only paper and ink, but actual people's lives (yes I'm referring to the Joe Wilson and wife affair).

Let he who is without felonious national security violations cast the first stone, my friends. Joe Wilson may be a bit of a schmuck and a whiner, but what the White House did to his wife is far more serious than what Berger is alleged to have done.

Le G.

PS: I still am awaiting the source on Fox News Website's claim that Berger was seen stuffing papers down his pants. If you have it, bring it out.

I’m trying very hard not to post too negative in response to Gadfly. Suffice it to say that people like him/her who have consistently supported these duplicitous liars have weakened this country.

At some point, after overwhelming evidence, don’t reasonable people understand just how dangerous they are?

They don’t play by any rules other than what’s good for them and that does not necessarily mean what’s good for this nation. And they don’t care!

Hopefully, Gadfly and his ilk will eventually become such a minority where they no longer matter.

1)uuuh...I guess they're making a big deal now because they JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT IT like the rest of us? And...because it's pretty big deal!!!??? When's the last time you "accidentally" stuffed stuff down your socks, pal? Be honest, now...

2)Let's see how worthy of our time you think it is when you're trapped on the 92nd floor of a burning building with a choice of either jumping out the window or burning to death. Since when are issues of national security and terrorism NOT worth our time and attention?

3)Affects only paper and ink? Do you honestly think that national security issues don't affect people's lives? Or that a cover-up like this for political purposes is merely an administrative or procedural issue, not worthy of our interest? Your lack of seriousness is appalling. "Mommy, I know I stole candy from the store, but Billy stole a whole carton of cigarettes!" This is your argument? You should personally apologize to all of the starving people of the world for the amount of money you WASTED on your graduate degree.

Get real, Mr. Philosopher-Man....

Dear Gadfly:

You insinuated that FOX News's report is somehow specious, and you asked us to name their source.

The Washington Post story today does not name its sources or use the word "pants", but it does report that "Sources have told The Washington Post, and other news organizations, that Berger was witnessed stuffing papers into his clothing." Now news organization often don't name their sources, so you can't demand a name here. But (because Woodward didn't write the story) I trust that the Washington Post didn't just _make up_ the existence of these sources so that it could report something that Fox is also reporting.

Rather, I think you must admit that, right now, the pants story has the preponderance of evidence on its side.

Some good debate, I like it.

As to Le G's concerns (and I wish you well in Deutschland):

1 & 2) Timing is everything on such leaks, it is true. But Berger or any Democratic leader could have leaked this at their convenience, say 3-4 months ago, if they wanted to preempt the Republican strategists from making hay with it at an opportune moment. That is, unfortunately, the way party politics works in a mass democracy (I know we "aren't" a "democracy" Mols) with a compliant establishment oriented media. I have read today that Kerry actually had no clue about this investigation until very recently, which I find ridiculous, I believe the claim, but it is ridiculous that Berger or Clinton or someone did not warn the Kerry camp of this potential scandal.

But, ultimately the timing of a leak isn't that big of a deal compared to an assessment of what actually occurred, and the accusations are very serious in this case and they are meaningful felonies.

3) Related to my last point, I have no problem with getting whoever (Libby Scooter probably) leaked about Wilson's wife. Wilson has been a jackass about it and totally lied about the Niger-uranium-Iraq issue, as well as tried to make himself out as some sort of hero. Also, his wife was really just a paper pusher (from what I have been able to find out) and so was never in any danger from being "outed." But both violations are serious and the truth should be discovered and culprits punished. Fine.

But the sad question for me is who in DC is actually serious about doing their duty for the good of this country? The media apparently just yawns about such scandals, wow, that is an adversarial press for you.

Le G eludes to John 8:7 as if to indicate that we have no choice but to acquiesce in these politicos endangering us through their nonchalant and flagrant violations of reasonable laws well-designed to protect us. I, personally, do not regret that Nixon got canned for something which, according to Le G's standard of what felonies are "serious," was an extremely minor violation of the law. Whose lives were endangered by his cover-up?

I think we can hold these pols to a decently high standard w/o running the risk of Phariseeism. Whether or not De Lay is a hypocrite (the shock, he is a politician) seems an extraneous issue to whether or not we should be forgiving of Berger.

Hmmmm...how long can we keep this thread going. Let me pour some fuel on the fire.

1.) First, to Mike Boyle, who advocates the tyranny of the majority --obviously born after 1980-- and is operating with the "not only are you wrong, but there's something wrong with you" premise:

(a) You don't know me! I never voted for Clinton, either time. In 1992 I voted for H.W., and in 1996 I cast my vote for my favorite comedian, Bob Dole, who is a genuinely funny man; if only his handlers had let him show it, he might have fared better.

(b) As a true progressive, I hate Bill Clinton. Politically, he's neo-liberal scum. What he did with welfare was Barry Goldwater's wet-dream back in 1964, and his "war from 10,000 feet" via NATO in Serbia was a humanitarian travesty.

(b2.) What's more, since 9-11, we are recognizing what the Greeks recognized all along: it's not wise to set up a Muslim gov't. on the doorstep of Europe under the guise of freedom of religion and the rights of man.

As Jefferson himself always maintained in his letters, religion is pre-societal, and ought to be tolerated only insofar as it can be made consistent with the values (my language, not his) of the society and the form of gov't (republican in our case and in Europe's). Let me ask you all: which religion do you see operating now in the world which least fits that bill?

(c) In 2004, I'm pulling the lever (while holding my nose), for Kerry, precisely because I believe everything you said about "them" (above) applies to W. and his administration, in spades. Kerry will not do much good for this country, but he will not do what "they" are doing, and he'll restore sanity to our foreign policy (except in Israel, where we are hopelessly off-track, Republicans and Democrats both, but where current public opinion will not tolerate corrections). So there.

2.) To Brian: you know darn well that it was the cover-up that got Nixon, and not the original crime, don't you?

3.) To Mols: Why do you mistrust Woodward so?

4.) To Nguyen (this is your real name? I doubt it...): You fail to read what I've writeen. But I have read carefully what you've written.

Here are some paraphrases of just a few of your absurd insinuations...

a.) Berger's theft of copies of papers which are all there for anyone to consult will be the sufficient (and necessary?) cause of another terrorist attack...

b.)the members of the U.S. Senate (rather than the DOJ and/or FBI) are responsible for investigating Berger's removal of the documents, NOW/TODAY (never-mind that the investigation has been ongoing since October 2003)...

c.) my argument against prosecuting Berger (which I never made), depends upon the premise that Berger did wrong but the White House did something worse...

I didn't say that Berger's removal of documents from the NSA archives (which, by the way, was not covered up, nor was the act itself a cover-up--if it was, it was fairly ineffective, since there are apparently copies of everything he took) wasn't worthy of our interest.

Obviously the whole town is interested.

My point is that I think it's a bit disingenuous for Republicans (and especially anyone at the White House) to moralise about this, since clearly they've done worse things.

At bottom, though, yes, I do think what Berger did was not all that important. If he did deliberately remove documents, whether for nefarious resons or not, he should be punished. I think there are far too many people (left and right) inside the Beltway who think, "The rules don't apply to me." Berger is just the latest example, or so it would seem.

What the Bushies have realized, though, is that Clinton-hatred in their base is almost as strong if not stronger than Bush-hatred in the Democratic base, so they feel the need to stir it up in time for the election (or at least the convention). That is why this Berger thing is being leaked now. Bottom line. You know it, Nguyen, and so do I. So let's not make it into a national travesty.

I'm shocked that you would doubt my credentials.

Quoth the Gadly: "To Mols: Why do you mistrust Woodward so?"

Why else? Because he is untrustworthy.

(In other words, he makes shit up.)

I will only respond to the one direct question to me "To Brian: you know darn well that it was the cover-up that got Nixon, and not the original crime, don't you?"

Yes, that is what I wrote in my post: "I, personally, do not regret that Nixon got canned for something which, according to Le G's standard of what felonies are "serious," was an extremely minor violation of the law. Whose lives were endangered by his cover-up?"

So, I think you just read through my post too fast. I was maintaining that the felony violations Nixon was guilty of . . . in the cover-up . . . would seem to be not "serious" by your standards in your earlier post and that was what I was disagreeing with.

WOW! That's a lot of words just to say, it was wrong!