Using diversion to avoid the real issue

This is a tactic the media uses (and falls for) quite often. One recent example is the Sandy Berger story. Sandy says he "inadvertantly" took some personal notes and classified documents from the National Archives. Over the following days the media has focused on two issues; was the theft really inadvertant or was it deliberate and who leaked the story and why?

While the second question may be of interest to some, the first question is irrelevant. Whether Sandy Berger took the documents inadvertantly or deliberately, both he and his lawyer have publicly stated that he took them. That is a violation of the law. Since Berger has admitted to violating the law, what is the FBI still investigating?

Senator Trent Lott, in a Hardball interview pointed out that "if it is of highly sensitive classified material, you cannot take that kind of information, even in your own handwriting, out of the room." So the attempt to characterize the Berger incident as the inadvertant taking of classified documents in itself obscures the fact that it was illegal for Berger even to take his own notes out of the room. Berger had to know that, and when discussing the matter he stated that "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."

Note the use of the phrase "actual classified documents". The handwritten notes were also classified documents, and Berger admits to "knowingly" removing them from the room. IOW, he has publicly confessed to the crime and admitted that he did it deliberately! Then he characterizes the theft of the "actual classified documents" as "inadvertant".

Others have been investigated when they had much less important documents stolen from them, even though the documents were later recovered. Some have been indicted and later convicted for stealing documents of lower classification than the ones that Berger took.

What may be even more bothersome is the reaction of Democrats, particularly Bill Clinton, who had the following to say about Berger's theft of top secret, codeword documents: the news "is a non-story", and "We were all laughing about it on the way over here". However humorous Clinton may find Berger's lack of organization, the theft of top secret documents is no laughing matter.

John Kerry's response is perhaps even more troubling. He stated, "Sandy Berger is my friend, and he has tirelessly served this nation with honor and distinction. I respect his decision to step aside as an adviser to the campaign until this matter is resolved objectively and fairly." Until this matter is resolved? Does this mean that Kerry would be willing to retain Berger's services in the future? He has publicly admitted to, at the least, an extremely lax attitude toward security. Is this the kind of man that Kerry would trust for advice?