Sandy Berger: Clinton protege?

The more I read about Sandy Berger, the worse it gets. What Berger did, in taking "Top Secret - codeword" documents (which is the highest level of Top Secret), is inexcusable, and his explanations only make it worse. When the story first broke we were told that Berger "returned some sensitive documents to the National Archives and admitted he also removed handwritten notes he had made while reviewing the sensitive documents." Berger and his lawyer admit "he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio." Berger said, "I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced,"

Keep in mind, this is the man who was the Director of the National Security Agency during a time when the nation was under attack (two African embassies, the USS Cole, etc.), and he blames "sloppiness" for "inadvertently" removing classified material from the National Archives (something that is apparently very difficult to do intentionally, much less inadvertently.)

Should we believe him? There is good reason not to. On Sunday, August 4, 2002, Time magazine issued a lengthy article entitled "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" in which Sandy Berger is quoted as saying,

One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive-just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000-an attack that left 17 Americans dead-he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.

(Bold emphasis is mine.)

We found out one year and one month later (September 23, 2003) that Berger lied about the supposed plan - when he testified before the 9/11 commission and stated, on the record

BERGER: Now, the second question you asked—which comes off of the Time magazine story, I think—was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition? I could address that.

The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had—I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information—what was going on and what situations they faced.

Number one among those was terrorism and Al Qaida. And I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly, so I'm not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing—on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.

(Bold emphasis again is mine.) "The reports" that Berger refers to are, of course, his interview with Time!

Obviously Berger learned his Clinton lessons well. Tell the bombshell story to the press and then deny it quietly later. (Unfortunately for him and others, the Internet has a long memory and so do bloggers.)

This isn't the only instance where Berger has been caught lying. In yet another example of his dissembling, Berger insisted that the Clinton administration had never been offered Osama bin Laden by Sudan.

Berger denied charges from some Republicans that Sudan had offered to turn over bin Laden to the United States in 1996.

"There was never such an offer," he said.

However, NewsMax reported that the Clinton administration had, in fact, been offered Osama bin Laden on a silver platter and turned it down. But why shouldn't Berger lie about it? Even Clinton did, until a tape turned up and forced him to reluctantly admit the truth.

Hat tip to Tom Maquire.