Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Sandy Berger takes One for the Clintons?

You have to wonder why a guy as smart as Sandy Berger came up with such lame excuses for having stolen and destroyed documents relevant to 9/11. Could it be Berger was trying to protect his former boss, Bill Clinton? Dick Morris, who helped get Clinton elected President twice and likely knows the Clintons as well as anyone speculates on why Berger committed this crime.

"Berger has admitted that he stuffed top-secret documents into his pockets, shirt and pants, and why he sliced some up with scissors, destroyed them and then lied about it. Until he gives a credible explanation for this behavior, we are all entitled to make the logical inference — that he was hiding something to protect himself and his old bosses.

The documents were an "after-action review" by Richard Clarke, then the National Security Council's terrorism expert, discussing and analyzing our efforts to stop attacks during the Millennium celebrations. They were so secret, the Washington Times reports, that anyone seeking to remove the documents would have had to do so in a briefcase handcuffed to his wrist. And, it seems, they were so critical of the former administration that Berger felt he needed to steal them. But why did Berger steal them?

The most obvious reason would be to stop the 9/11 commission from including embarrassing revelations in its report.

Yes, the documents Berger purloined were not the only copies, but it's not clear that Berger knew that. Or there may have been handwritten notes in the margins of the copies Berger destroyed — written by the president, Berger or others."
Indeed why did Berger steal this documents? And why was he willing to ruin any future career ambitions by doing so? One alsomust speculate what was so embarrassing to the Clinton Administration that may have been hamdwritten on those copies of that report.
"Berger would also have us believe he "inadvertently" cut up and "inadvertently" destroyed the documents — that he had no intention of concealing anything from the commission. And then, I suppose, he inadvertently lied about what he'd done.

Come on. With a shabby explanation like that, Berger invites speculation that he is covering for himself or for the Clintons.

Back in the '90s, I found Berger consistently unwilling to act vigorously against terror-sponsoring nations. When Sen. Al D'Amato proposed sanctions against Iran, Berger tried to get Clinton to veto the bill; it was only after much public pressure that he signed it."
Could ot be that any handwritten notes on that document may have pointed out that the softness on terrorism by the Clinton Administration led to the planned MilleniumAttack/ After all, it appears that it was the vigilance of one individual and some luck that thwarted that attack and not any policy or action put forth by the Clinton Adminstration.

Morris concludes with this:
"Picture the fevered atmosphere in the months after 9/11. Any indication by the commission investigating the attack that the Clinton administration hadn't taken terrorism seriously would badly damage the former president's reputation and the former first lady's chances. Any loyal adviser would have worked to mitigate the possible damage. The measure of how serious the damage may have been is how far Berger risked falling to prevent it — and how far he did fall rather than reveal why. "
This may be the most viable explanation for the crimes of Sandy Berger. - Sailor

No comments:

Post a Comment