Skip to main content

I have admittedly ignored the Sandy Berger thing. Everything I read indicated that he may have done something stupid, but if Ashcroft's Justice Department wasn't interested in pursuing a case, it couldn't be anything serious.

Of course, the GOP hysteria over the topic isn't really about anything Berger did. It's about fear of the upcoming 9/11 report. Stealing this from the Center for American Progress:

One day before the bipartisan 9/11 Commission is scheduled to release its final report, Bush administration allies on Capitol Hill have put their partisan spin machine into high-gear. Despite overwhelming evidence that President Bush underfunded counter-terrorism, ignored repeated memos warning of an imminent attack by Osama bin Laden, and took one of the longest vacations in presidential history while the pre-9/11 security threat boiled, Republicans are seeking to blame 9/11 on the Clinton administration even before the Commission's report has been published. Their current target: former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, who in October 2003 acknowledged inadvertently losing two documents from the National Archives. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist claimed Berger was trying to deceive the 9/11 Commission. They failed to mention the Commission refuted that charge, and that even the Bush Justice Department admits the incident is so innocuous, that CBS News reports "law enforcement sources say they don't expect any criminal charges will be filed."

REPUBLICANS ADMIT THE TIMING SMELLS: CBS News reported last night that even Republicans "say the timing of the investigation's disclosure smells like politics, leaked to the press just two days before the 9/11 Commission report comes out." Republican strategist Eddie Mahe said, "somebody is manipulating the process." Why? Because, as the WP reports, the final report by the commission concludes Iraq "never established operational ties" with al Qaeda. In other words, the Commission is about to formally conclude that one of the two major justifications the administration gave for war in Iraq was a fraud. With the WMD justification also proving false, the administration is desperate to distract from polls that show a majority of Americans say the war was a mistake. Even more troubling for the White House, almost half the public now says the White House "deliberately misled" America about Iraq. It was this fear that the Commission would embarrass the Bush administration that led the White House to oppose its creation. And it is no surprise that yesterday Commission Chairman Tom Kean admitted that some wanted the 9/11 Commission to fail.

MOTIVE ACCUSATIONS JUST PLAIN SILLY: Reuters reports "Republicans accused Berger of taking the documents so they could be used by the Kerry campaign at a news conference on port security." Said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "Right after the documents were taken, John Kerry held a photo op and attacked the president on port security. The documents that were taken may have been utilized for that press conference." Although the timing in this fable may be accurate, one thing is clear: neither Kerry nor any citizen in America needs secret documents from the National Archives to know the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have dangerously underfunded seaport and airport security. As American Progress fellow PJ Crowley notes, while the Coast Guard has said it needs $7.5 billion for key port security upgrades, the White House has requested just $45 million this year. Similarly, as the Century Foundation reports, while "the Transportation Security Administration estimates there is a 35% to 65% chance that terrorists are planning to place a bomb in the cargo of a U.S. passenger plane" the administration has only provided funding to make sure that 5% of air cargo is screened.

SAXBY CHAMBLISS – A RIGHT-WING SMEAR ARTIST: As the Dallas Morning News reports, the Berger affair "took on a slightly comic note" as Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) claimed without any proof that Berger "put some papers in his trousers" (Berger categorically denies this charge). Chambliss, of course, has made his career dishonestly smearing decorated war heroes who lost limbs in Vietnam, even while he refused to explain how he avoided all military service during the war. In his 2002 race against triple amputee veteran Max Cleland, Chambliss "ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden." At the same time the ads were running, Chambliss refused to explain how he received three draft deferments – including two for a "bum knee" even though he still found a way to play baseball in college.

WHERE IS THE LEAK OUTRAGE?: CBS News reports the controversy "was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak" about the FBI's investigation of the matter. Yet, top administration officials and Republicans who have previously expressed outrage about leaks were nowhere to be found. There was no statement of outrage or call for an investigation from Attorney General John Ashcroft who in 2001 said leaks "do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation." Similarly, there was nothing from the Chambliss, who one year ago said "leaks have always been a problem and continue to be a problem." And it was all quiet at the Pentagon, despite Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stating last year that leaks are "disgraceful, they're unprofessional, they're dangerous."

NO SIMILAR OUTRAGE ABOUT BUSH RECORDS BEING DESTROYED: Even as Rush Limbaugh and the GOP's congressional leadership insinuate without proof that Berger was deliberately trying to destroy records, they have made little mention about last week's disclosure that President Bush's key military draft records were destroyed by Pentagon officials. The documents in question would have proven whether the President was lying about whether he fulfilled his military service that allowed him to avoid going to Vietnam. The destruction of the documents has forced the Associated Press to sue for copies of them, which are legally required to exist in the Texas archives. Despite promises to release all documents, the president has refused to release the Texas copies.

Plenty there to chew on as I pack.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:43 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  By way of comparison... (none)
      Go read this crap.

      No, really.  Look.  

      Count the errors.  This guy would've been out of date yesterday.  And that's the first story on the topic at google news right now.  

      That's journalism, folks.  

      Write this incompetent sack of shit and tell him what you think:  

      jeff@ringsidepolitics.com

    •  Another big item: the Source of the leak? (none)
      President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, disclosed Wednesday that the Justice Department notified the office of White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzalez about the probe before news of it leaked to the media Monday.

      "My understanding is that this investigation has been going on for several months and that some officials in our counsel's office were contacted as part of the investigation," McClellan told reporters. "The counsel's office is the one that is coordinating with the Sept. 11 commission the production of documents and since this relates to some documents, the counsel's office was contacted as part of that investigation."

      This AP report doesn't indicate how long ago the WH was notified (or why, in any believable way), but it could have been months ago, or the day of the leak.  Either way, the finger of suspicion on leaking the investigation is now firmly pointing at the White House.

      This may answer the "who leaked" question, and also clearly points to the "why leaked question".

      The leak was quite likely made in the WH and very likely for political impact on Kerry and also to drown out the 9/11 Commission report.  

      It may also serve to undermine the 9/11 report to the degree that the media and press continue to fuzz up whether the Commission got all of the relevent documents.

      AP via Yahoo

      "pay any price, bear any burden"

      by JimPortlandOR on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:48:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Right from the Playbook (none)
    Classic diversion play.  You create a diversion, and then use it deflect attention away from your own failures.  Now, no one can honestly say Berger's absent-minded mistake is on the same level as the Bush Administrations failures in the War on Terror.  But since when does honestly stop the Bush Administration.  All they need to do is create the impression that these stories need to be given "equal" weight, and they'll have accomplished their goal.

    My question is, what are they hoping to pull when the Plame investigation moves forward?  After all, if doing research to help identify failures in our national security and repair them is such a grave and dangerous act, just what is out a covert CIA opperative to intimidate a political opponent?

    Misplacing copies while trying to help the nation vs. endangering a CIA agent for crass political gain.  Hmm.  I wonder if this a discussion the GOP wanted to bring up?

    •  Diversion? (none)
      Really, if the Bush people think this story is going to distract from the 9/11 report, they are more out of touch than I thought.  

      ---
      This post is just a preview. Get the full effect at SpaceRook.com

      by TrentL on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:56:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Remember Kerry's intern ?? (none)
        My bet is that this "story" is going the same way.  And more important, I think Kerry is developing a Teflon coating of sorts.  This crap just doesn't stick.
        •  Let's hope so (none)
          I think Kerry is developing a Teflon coating of sorts.  This crap just doesn't stick.

          cause the repuglicans will go batshit after we toss Bush from the Whitehouse

          Does anybody else see a Defenistration coming

      •  saf (none)
        even if it doesn't distract, at least all the talking head brownshirts like sean insanity and rush limbaugh and ann coulter now have their simplistic 'it was clinton's fault' boat to shoot from when they're dealing with the 9/11 commission report.
    •  sdf (none)
      All they need to do is create the impression that these stories need to be given "equal" weight, and they'll have accomplished their goal.

      great point.  people keep talking about how classless and lowbrow the timing of this is, but don't forget that the people this type of thing targets aren't picky with their political nuance.  They'll turn the tv off in a second when you start talking about riders and amendments, but will have it on until dinner if you're talking about stuffing things in your socks or any other thing this administration can think up to a provide a distraction.

      remember, that when we see all this diversionary garbage, it's targeted at the people who factor in tie colors and how many times you say 'snippy' in a debate.  

      whether we see this crap for what it is right now means nothing to rove or anybody else creating all this stuff.

      •  Still... (none)
        ..I gotta wonder since Sandy has been under investigation for this since last OCtober (and Josh Marshall also is wondering), WHY THE HELL DID HE JUST RESIGN FROM THE KERRY CAMPAIGN NOW!  He had to know how this was going to be spun having had experience with these guys during the Clinton years.  I am also not clear HOW it happenned...does anyone know?  How did he mistakenly take classified documents?
    •  It's a diversion--but from Plame (none)
      I think it's a huge mistake to assume this is a diversion from 9/11.

      No. It's a diversion from the upcoming Plame indictments. As I explain in this diary, the reason they're doing this is to have some way to make the Plame indictments they fully expect to seem less important.

      This is the second part of at least a 3-part strategy to minimize the Plame indictments. They've diminished the importance of the crime in general by accusing Joe Wilson of lying. With the Berger indictment, they're trying to suggest that both parties will sacrifice security for partisan advantage.

      And I fully expect them to do one of the following, depending on who is indicted. If Cheney is NOT indicted, then you will see some serious spin about how Cheney was not associated with this. If Cheney is indicted, then we're going to see some spin about how Cheney is not necessary.

      This is a really well-thought out plan to minimize the effect of the Plame indictments. By assuming it is something else, we really put ourselves in a weakened position.

  •  At least Kerry people understand accountability (4.00)
    Sandy Berger may very well be innocent of criminal behavior, but he he felt this focus on him would distract from Kerry's convention debut. Instead of letting his own travails weigh down his colleague, he did the ethical thing and resigned as an informal advisor. Even if he has been unfairly targeted, he thought of the greater good.

    Box turtle Ellen
    Knows how to pleasure snappers
    All the girls love her

    by John Campanelli on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:50:56 AM PDT

  •  i feel it coming (4.00)
    rage overload ... words cannot express how much this angers me ...

    @#$(_"?!$#~)($@&$&%&$%@^>?%^(#@!!!

    For Bush, personal responsibility means holding others personally responsible.

    by cracklins on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:52:21 AM PDT

  •  duh, of course the timing is political... (4.00)
    ...but let's not run off a cliff defending Berger before we know what the hump happened.  It's an awfully weird story no matter how partisan-fueled it is.

    Everyone here just knows we'd be wigging out if Condi did this.  Wigging out.  Berger DOES have some 'splaining to do on this matter, period.  

    My fear is that this thing has become so insanely partisan that no one is going to believe the results of the investigation un;ess it suits their viewpoint.  That's the real shame.

    I will have your badge!

    by DarthCheney on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:55:54 AM PDT

    •  Running off that Cliff (3.50)
      If Condi did this I would be upset with unprofessional behavior and I would expect her to lose her job.

      I am upset with Sandy's unprofessional behavior and he has already lost his job.

      Ultimately, though, I think we'd realize that there isn't cause for reading too much into a lapse of appropriate protocol.  Its important protocol, but let's face it.  The reason Berger isn't in trouble with the law over this is that no one thinks there was anything nefarious to what he did or that it was likely any harm would come from it.  I'd say the same if it was Condi.  The professional irresponsibility would be inexcusable, to be sure, but the remedy is that they lose their job.  That's it.

      The problem is that many GOP'ers are suggesting nefarious intent and doing so without a shred of proof or even a reason to suspect it.  We ought not be afraid to defend Berger when he's unfairly attacked, even if we acknowledge there are fair reasons to be disappointed with his actionsa.

      •  I agree with every word. (none)
        Nice post.

        I've just been troubled by many of the liberal forums  I've visited today that are practically deifying Berger.  I find that pathetic, frankly, and equally as repulsive as the right-wing jihadists.

        The citizens are owed an explanation in this matter...and not though lawyer mouthpieces.

        I will have your badge!

        by DarthCheney on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:14:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing pathetic about it. (none)
          I think those defenses have a justification, though.  Berger was inexcusably negligent in observing necessary protocol for classified documents.  He was sloppy and has rightly apologized and admitted his error and has been out-front in offering to assist investigators.

          Yes, Berger messed up, but he did so while researching testimony for the 9/11 Commission.  That needs to be mentioned.  He messed up not in trying to deceive the commission or to taint its proceedings.  He was trying to prepare to offer them his assistance.  That needs to be mentioned.  Especially in light of how the Bush Administration did try to hide information from the Commission.  They did display a disregard for classified materials, as well, as Ashcroft brazenly declassified materials to smear a member of the commission.  All offenses, legal or not, that were far more objectionable then Berger's sloppiness.

          And, as some GOP'ers try to smear Berger and suggest that this was a part of a plan to threatend national security or to deceive the 9/11 Commission, there needs to be a strong statement against it.  Part of that is acknowledging that Berger was a committed and dedicated public servent.  Yes, he messed up, so it may seem odd to praise him now.  But the context is key.  He is being praised to refute disgusting and baseless attacks upon his integrity.  The tenor of those defenses only matches the depths of the objectionable accusations leveled at him.

          It would be wrong to say that his mistake didn't matter, but I find nothing pathetic in trying to defend an honest and dedicated public servant from dishonest and horrific accusations.

    •  But isn't that (none)
      the real goal?

      "By focusing fear and hatred on the Tutsi, the organizers hoped to forge solidarity among Hutu." -- Human Rights Watch

      by a gilas girl on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 02:01:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Signs of Strain (none)
    The Berger blip is a sign of Rovian panic.  This is so silly.  They all have their knickers in a twist.
    •  I agree (none)
      It's so transparent even the SCLM (CBS in particular) are wise to the ruse.  Plus the fact that they brought out all the old stentorians to bellow.  The only thing that makes sense is that they are trying to shore up the base with a 'pumpkin papers' parable.  My guess is that the non-committed people are going to think what Reagan said 'there you go again'.  By the way, I think this is the line the Kerry campaign should be using.  People are getting wise to Rove's tactics, the dems might as well start taking advantage of that fact.
  •  The Great Sandy Berger Backfire (4.00)
    I'll cut to the chase...
    ________
    Melanie Ann Pustay, Deputy Director
    Office of Information and Policy
    Department of Justice
    Suite 570, Flag Building
    Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

    July 21, 2004

    Dear Ms. Pustay:

    This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §552, and is submitted on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.

    According to recent reporting, an investigation into former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger has been going on for at least nine months, since October 2003. Yet, the criminal investigation only came to light three days prior to the release of a report expected to be critical of the Bush administration's lack of focus on the events leading up to the 9-11 attacks. As conservative scholar Norm Ornstein stated, "you can't look at the timing of this with anything but an enormous amount of skepticism." [CNN, 7/20/04]

    In light of the seriousness of the possibility that the Bush administration and the Department of Justice have politicized an ongoing investigation, it is imperative that this Freedom of Information request is responded to in an expedited manner.

    Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 and the regulations of the Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §16.3, I am requesting copies of the following:

    Any and all communications relating or referring to the investigation of Samuel ("Sandy") Berger, between, correspondence (including electronic mail) between, memoranda between, phone records of communications between, meeting notes and/or minutes of meetings between, on the one hand, any official or employee of the US Department of Justice AND, on the other hand, (i) the Executive Office of the President or any unit or office thereof (including but not limited to the Office of the Vice President); (ii) any official, employee, or representative of the Republican National Committee; OR (iii) any official, employee or representative of the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign.

    This request covers all documents created during the period from and including October 1, 2003 through and including July 20, 2004.

    For your purposes in filling this request, please consider me under the category of "all other organizations," as defined by the Freedom of Information Act. If there are any fees for copying or searching for the records I have requested, please inform me of the cost prior to searching or copying, and only if the total exceeds $100.

    If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption which you believe justifies your refusal to release the information and inform me of your agency's administrative appeal procedures available to me under the law.

    Please provide all information on a rolling basis if possible. I appreciate your handling of this request as quickly as possible and I look forward to hearing from you within 20 working days, as the law stipulates.

    If you have any questions or need further information concerning the above request, please contact me at the address below or at 202-863-8121.

    Thank you for your attention to this request.

    Sincerely,

    Terence R. McAuliffe, Chairman
    430 South Capitol Street, SE
    Washington, DC 20003
    _
    ___________

    Plus vite! :)

    -Anonymoses
    http://anonymoses.blogspot.com

  •  lots of easy ripostes, but can anyone help (none)
    regarding the photo-op Man-on-Dog Santorum is referring to?

    Said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "Right after the documents were taken, John Kerry held a photo op and attacked the president on port security.

    Berger went to the archives in the summer & fall of 2003.  What kind of photo-ops was Kerry doing then?

    America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

    by bribri on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:02:12 PM PDT

    •  google got me bupkis (none)
      But I did find this:  

      Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) chimed in immediately, "Right after the documents were taken, John Kerry held a photo-op and attacked the president on port security, the documents that were taken may have been utilized for that press conference."  Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) also were in front of cameras speculating that same thought. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) released this, "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?  Did these documents detail simple negligence or did they contain something more sinister?"  The release continued, ""Mr. Berger has a lot of explaining to do. He was given access to these documents to assist the 9/11 Commission, not hide information from them. The American people and the 9/11 families don't want cover-ups when it comes to the War on Terror. They want the truth."

      The author goes on to demand Kerry release all correspondence with Berger, so we shouldn't expect any analysis of the above assertions, the last of which is laughably misinformed.  

      OK, now I've linked to both Drudge and a puke-funnel.  [sigh]

    •  The GOP Senators could be referring (none)
      either to a December 2003 or a Memorial Day 2004 appearance at Portsmouth.  However, considering their comrades' grasp of the facts of the case, I doubt that they have anything in mind that is both

      a) specific

      and

      b) true

    •  Don't you know? (4.00)
      Why, Kerry was waiting in the getaway car when Berger bounded down the steps with his trousers stuffed full of our nation's most sensitive secrets!
    •  AP quotes Berger (none)
      as saying that, "I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely."
      here
      The Portsmouth speech on ports was on December 17.

      No surprise, repubs are full of it.  Just wanted to find the facts.

      America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

      by bribri on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:15:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  did Herr Santorum ... (none)
      happen to catch the ABC piece in summer '03, where they shipped uranium out of Djakarta under just about everyone's nose?

      Dean, for one, saw it.  I imagine at least a few million other people did.  Gee, I wonder why Kerry would be talking about port security?  He's a bright fellow, you know.

      Rick Santorum must not be one for keeping up with the news either.

      "Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth. It is wise and terrible!"
      Send Steve King back to Crawford County!

      by section29 on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:03:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  meanwhile, please help us correct the stupid NYT (3.66)
    with a million e-mails to New York Times; here's mine:

    The following is from Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson's article "Bush Campaign Plans No Rest In Next Month" in today's NY Times (7/21/04):
    "Mr. Bush has other factors potentially in his favor, several Republicans said. .... In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty has led to some reduction in American casualties."

    The fact is that more Americans have been killed in this month in Iraq than in the whole month of June when "sovereignty" was turned over to the Iraqis on the 28th.  

    Mr. Ockrent, please tell your editors and ad sales department that one of the main reasons why the circulation of your newspaper is down is that former readers like me needed to double-check every statement made by your credulous political reporters, whom you eventually shunt to restaurant reviews after their preferred candidates send our children to be killed in war.

    Thank you.

    •  Thanks for posting this (none)
      I posted this elsewhere and went to look at the month-to-month killing data...This month (and it is even over) has more deaths than nearly half of the total months of the eyeRak fiasco...

      The NYTimes printed a 100% absolute lie on this. We need to call, write or whatever to make sure this is corrected...

    •  My e-mail (4.00)
      For what it's worth (links were spelled out in the actual message I sent; changed here so I don't kill Scoop), here's what I wrote:

      Mr. Okrent:

      While I have tremendous respect for you as the creator of Rotisserie League Baseball (a pastime in which I happily indulged from 1988 to 1994, prior to it unfortunately evolving into Big Business), I simply must call your attention to an egregious error in today's article, "Bush Plans No Rest in Next Month; 2nd Term Agenda Near."

      Specifically, the authors state as fact, apparently quoting "several Republicans," that "[i]n Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty has led to some reduction in American casualties."  In fact, as you can see by going to link and clicking on the link "Graphical breakdown of casualties," there was only one fewer American fatality in 19 days' worth of July as there were in the entire month of June.  In short, it is highly irresponsible to print a GOP talking point about reduction in American casualties as fact, especially when the facts show exactly the opposite, adding the additional deaths from yesterday and today to those shown as of July 19.  (More information is available at link.)  Moreover, even if casualties had been fewer in July, there is no correlation between the alleged "transfer of sovereignty" (which all but the most strident Bush supporters would have to admit is farcical) and the number of casualties, since casualties were even fewer in, for example, February 2004.

      I trust you will print an appropriate correction and that you further will recommend to Messrs. Nagourney and Stevenson that they thoroughly check their facts before printing and that they will indicate the bias of certain information as necessary.  Thank you in advance.

      We'll see if there's a response.  I only wish I could have found a website with accurate-to-the-day casualty figures - best I could do was numbers as of July 19 and add in the deaths from the 20th and 21st.

      Another small chink in the armor of the SCLM.  I hope.

      "Hey Lois, look! The two symbols of the Republican party. An elephant and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change." - Peter Griffin, Family Guy

      by Sinfonian on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 02:13:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iraq casualties (none)
        This website has very detailed breakdowns of American and coalition casualties, including day by day.

        Thanks for writing the Times, this kind of response is so important. I still can't believe just how sloppy and lazy reporters have become. I mean this stuff is easy to lookup.

  •  Chambliss (none)
    So Chambliss thinks Berger stuffed papers in his pants? What a hopeless, backwoods degenerate cocksucker he is. The only one who stuffs  things in his pants is Saxby's ideological wet dream- G.W.- when he minced along the deck of the aircraft carrier with the sock in his crotch.
  •  diversionary tactics (none)
    Well, at least the Berger story has spared Rove the trouble of trotting out Ashcroft and/or Ridge tomorrow to announce a new terrorist threat as soon as the 9/11 report hits the street.
  •  port security (none)
    So John Kerry talked about port security in October 2003?  I listened to Howard Dean talk about it in september in San Francisco.

    Getting his information from Sandy Berger, or just plagiarizing the guy who was really on top of things? I think it's safe to say Sandy Berger wasn't feeding Dean documents he didn't have at the time.

    Voters may be stupid, but they're not THAT stupid.

    by Radical Middle on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:16:05 PM PDT

  •  berger story and the Iraq "nuke" story (none)
    based on a comment i wrote earlier today:

    Do you think the obviously false claim that 3 nuclear-tipped missles were found in Iraq earlier today might have been another distraction from the 9/11 report (which seems to conclude that all of Bush's reasons for going to war were bogus).

    Let's trace where this story came from: UPI and Drudge via Al-Sabah, a newspaper founded and funded by the Pentagon last July. A newspaper which saw almost the entire staff quit in protest of it being a pro-US military mouthpiece this May.

    I had thought earlier that this was just local propaganda to scare Iraqis, and which mistakenly got picked up by the wires. But on second thought, that explanation makes no sense. Would Iraqis be scared that Saddam might actually have acquired nuclear warheads? Wouldn't such a revelation would only serve to brighten Saddam's legacy among Iraqis? Pakistanis erupted with joy when they produced the first "Islamic bomb," wouldn't Iraqis love to have a bomb too?

    No, I don't think this was propaganda aimed at Iraqis. I think the US wires were meant to pick on this, and it was meant to temporarily jolt the markets and introduce a sense of uncertainty into what Saddam actually had re: WMD. I suppose they made up the bit about nuclear missiles (as patently ridiculous - and "stupid", as the Iraqi interior ministry said - as it sounds) because your run-of-the-mill sarin or mustard gas "find" wouldn't have gotten any press due to "cry wolf" syndrome in the US media.

    This was misinformation from the US military (at what level I'm not sure, but I wouldn't doubt the Pentagon leadership was involved) meant to introduce uncertainty into American public opinion re: Iraq WMD just one day before the 9/11 commission was to state some definite certainties regarding Iraq.

    This was propaganda aimed at us. What other explanation is there? Read the article about Al-Sabah above. Unless something has changed in the last 2 months, that newspaper is nothing but an American propaganda trumpet. How could a story of this importance get printed if the US didn't approve it?

    Add it to the Berger re-direction. These guys are playing dirty.

    •  Also (3.50)
      It occurs to me that this isn't just designed to distract the public. It distracts the media and wastes their time, leaving less time for real news.

      It's not just that the corporate news media are bad at their jobs, and interested only in sensationalism and making money--though that's also true. Just as important, perhaps, is that media organizations only have so many reporters and so much money for reporting expenses. This results in laziness, such as reliance upon government sources without looking for a second opinion.

      Add in a bunch of false stories that sound sensational, and reporters have to use the dwindling resources granted them by their bosses chasing down false leads. Even if they eventually get the story right, they've wasted time they could have used focusing on important news. But if they bide their time and keep resources in real stories, they risk missing the scoop. They're compelled by the demands of the current market to spend time chasing phantoms.

      I think that's part of why the Big Lie works, too. It's much easier to debunk specific claims like this one. But debunking "Saddam is working with al-Qaeda, has WMD, and can attack the US suddenly at will" is a lot harder to do.

      "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." -- MLK, Jr.

      by seaprog on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:59:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry (none)
        It occurs to me that this isn't just designed to distract the public. It distracts the media and wastes their time, leaving less time for real news.

        I may be misreading you, but your statement implies that the media in interested in covering real news.  That is a highly dubious claim. :)

  •  Ahem... (none)
    So many targets, so little time...

    Reuters reports "Republicans accused Berger of taking the documents so they could be used by the Kerry campaign at a news conference on port security." Said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "Right after the documents were taken, John Kerry held a photo op and attacked the president on port security. The documents that were taken may have been utilized for that press conference."

    Shorter Santorum: "The classified documents that prove we haven't done a damn thing about securing our ports have fallen into the wrong hands!"

    "There was no statement of outrage or call for an investigation from Attorney General John Ashcroft who in 2001 said leaks "do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation."

    Shorter Ashcroft: "Valerie...? Hmm...nope, I'm positive I don't know anyone by that name."

  •  Where's the fire? (none)
      Hello America, Sandy Berger isn't running for anything.  

    Winning without Delay.

    by ljm on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:28:37 PM PDT

  •  GOP Freakout! (3.50)
    It's amazing.  This Administration has nothing to run on.

    The economy is stuck in neutral, the war in Iraq is a clusterf---k, the military is reduced to bribing airmen and sailors to join the Army, and the 9/11 Commission is about to make them look like total fools.

    Scandal is all they have left.  Do I detect a whiff of desperation? Methinks I do.

  •  I think we are whistling past the graveyard (1.00)
    If you think this is going away any time soon.

    Its hard for me to see this as an 'honest mistake' when Berger acknowledges that he took all of the copies of a single report that detailed the government's response to the 1999 millenium terrorist threat.

    And then he 'mistakenly' took classified documents not once, but on multiple occasions.  

    That the archives staff set up a mini-sting operation because he was becoming so blantant about it.

    There are stories about him putting notes he took about these documents in his pants and jacket, again, breakiing the rules.

    And he is not someone who can say he did not know the rules.

    This is a serious breach of the rules and the Republicans are not going to let it go away quickly.

    •  motive? (none)
      i still haven't heard a single reasonable motive for Berger to want to go to such lengths to get rid of any such document. To make Clinton look better? Please.

      By all accounts, Sandy is a very unorganized, messy guy when it comes to paperwork. Always has been. He seems to be fully cooperating with investigators and fully cognizant of his actions. He doesn't think he broke a law, and Justice doesn't seem to think so either.

      Meanwhile, any critical word (especially "Saudi") from any document examining the Bush administration is BLACKED OUT on "national security" grounds that even Republican legislators have all but said is BS. And we're supposed to be more outraged at Sandy Berger. Whatever.

    •  fuck that (none)
      the way to bury this shit is to go on offense.
      •  I am assuming that Berger (none)
        testified under oath.  If that is the case, then our response is simple.

        "If he had anything to hide he would have never agreed to testify under oath.  Only someone with something to hide would refuse to testify under oath."

        Don't Blame America, we voted for Gore.

        by ETinKC on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:58:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure what you mean by 'all' copies.. (none)
      ...because according to the USA Today

      There is no indication that Berger's action affected the 9/11 commission's work; a spokesman for the panel said Tuesday that the classified papers -- some of which are still missing -- were copies of original documents.

      No information could have been forged, or changed, since Berger had only copies.  I'm not apologizing for Berger in anyway.  Why he did this, I don't know.

      But this certainly shoots the "covering Clinton's ass" conspiracy down.

    •  What's inexcusable (none)
      Your repeating largely fabricated wingnut talking points here is inexcusable.

      I define truth as the system of my limitations, and leave absolute truth for those who are better equipped for it. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

      by Steady Eddie on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:33:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (none)
        Karlito, where are the links to support your accusations?  Or is this a case of using one of Fox New's favorite techniques, the ol' "some people say" to give a sheen of authenticity to your complaint?
        •  They are not my accusations.... but here is (none)
          the Washington Post story that covers it:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4189-2004Jul21.html?nav%3Drss_politics

          Last Oct. 2, former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger stayed huddled over papers at the National Archives until 8 p.m.

          What he did not know as he labored through that long Thursday was that the same Archives employees who were solicitously retrieving documents for him were also watching their important visitor with a suspicious eye.

          After Berger's previous visit, in September, Archives officials believed documents were missing. This time, they specially coded the papers to more easily tell whether some disappeared, said government officials and legal sources familiar with the case. . . .

          The government source said the Archives employees were deferential toward Berger, given his prominence, but were worried when he returned to view more documents on Oct. 2. They devised a coding system and marked the documents they knew Berger was interested in canvassing, and watched him carefully. They knew he was interested in all the versions of the millennium review, some of which bore handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials who had reviewed them. At one point an Archives employee even handed Berger a coded draft and asked whether he was sure he had seen it.

          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.

  •  As obvious as (none)
    the reaction by the GOP is I am infuriated by the actions of Sandy Berger, the DEMS always seem to be able to shoot themselves in the foot whenever they have the wingnuts in a politically compromising position.

    It looks like the public and the media are starting to see through the GOP smokescreen, but I still am angry at the stupidity of Berger and how his actions could take away from the focus on the WH and the responsibility it has for 9/11.

    As far as Saxby Chambliss getting deferments for a bum knee and still playing baseball in college, he didn't have a bum knee because of injury, he has a bum knee because he is a bum, and that is the nicest thing I can say about the chickenhawk. Compared to Max Cleland you are excrement Saxby, and you're a coward, but you already knew that didn't you.

    PEACE!
    ABB&B!!!
    KERRY/EDWARDS 2004

  •  Time for a massive counterattack (none)
    On port security.

    Get Gary Hart out there waving his report around and getting angry. Angry!

    Where was the fucking intelligence reform? Huh? Four years and NOTHING.

    Etc.

  •  Although Shameless and Underhanded (none)
    I am beginning to find the desperation somewhat comforting.

    Send the RNC a message in New York: Shut It Down

    by gboston on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 12:50:02 PM PDT

    •  i don't (none)
      not when I see Wolf Blitzer falling hook line and sinker for this crap and devoting over half his show to it yesterday.

      not when RNC talking points become accepted facts amongst the SLCM (the pants and socks business).

      not when the national security of our country is being continually sacrificed at the altar of vindictive political retribution.

      no, i won't be comforted until everyone stops playing the GOP game, and Kerry is sworn in.

      desperation can be dangerous.

  •  Why don't the Dems have one? (none)
    "...have put their partisan spin machine into high-gear."

    The Clinton WH was good at this.

    But the Hill is completly empty.

    Can't they organize 5 to 6 members to attack Hastert, Delay, Thomas for their crooked, illegal acts?

  •  On Lou Dobbs yesterday (none)
    (I posted this in a diary earlier, but it bears repeating)

    James Woolsey (former DCI, neo-con, chickenhawk, PNAC'er) said this:

    WOOLSEY: Well, it has to be looked into thoroughly and carefully. But I've known Sandy Berger for 20 years, and I find it hard to believe that he would maliciously or intentionally do something like this.

    My -- you know, I had a security violation once when I was ambassador 15 years ago in Moscow. I had a classified document, and I was working on it in one part of the embassy, and I put it with some other papers and left it in the wrong part of the embassy, and I got a security violation.

    Almost anybody who's worked on things like this has done something like this from time to time. I think we ought to withhold judgment until Sandy's story is out.

    So Woolsey did virtually the same thing, in 1989, in Moscow -- I certainly don't recall ever hearing a word about that, either at the time or later. Let me re-repeat that: Woolsey's 'security violation', in arguably much more serious circumstances, was (AFAIK) NEVER made public.

  •  Stop it! (4.00)
    This whole thing is a red herring, and we are stupidly taking the bait.  Rove throws out a tasty distraction, and here we all are, talking of nothing else all day.

    Stop it!  Don't take bait!  Stay on message.

    There will be a lot more of these things in the coming months.  They will dangle fragrant pieces of bait every day.  We can't be distracted by it every time.

    I don't care if Berger took some copies of documents that he himself wrote by mistake.  Berger's absent-mindedness is not the most important thing to be consuming the entire bandwidth of the country today.

    [I admit it's not easy to keep the discussion where we want it with all the "pundits" eagerly yapping about whatever BC04 wants them to, but imho we need to try harder.]

    •  asdf (none)
      You don't neutralize bullshit attacks by ignoring them.  That was Dukakis' strategy and it failed miserably.  You counterattack and debunk and then you attack, attack and attack again!
    •  and the repubs have been forced to spend zero (none)
      time on Sy Hersh's revelations of child rape.  Up is down.

      America began begins with freedom from King George's empire.

      by bribri on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:26:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  speculative revelations? (none)
        Has this stuff about American soldiers sexually abusing Iraqi teens actually "gone public", or are people only saying he has this material?  I have seen mention on this site of secondhand accounts of Hersh blanching and saying,"There's more..." but that is ambiguous and he could be referring to anything.

        I haven't heard anything in the media about this though, and I haven't been hiding under rocks lately... if he has this material why is he sitting on it?

        1. late-season sucker-punch at the Bush Admin (October Surprise?)
        2. it's so horrible he's worried about potential worldwide reverberations
        3. it's so horrible someone is sitting on HIM to keep it under wraps
        Anyone out there know what is really going on w/this?
        I hope it isn't true, I hope no such thing happened
    •  McClellan has now come clean (none)
      see post above:

      dKos

      The WH was informed by the Justice dept before the leak, although the story quoted denies that WH had any information on the story.

      Just another WH lie, reversed one day later.

      "pay any price, bear any burden"

      by JimPortlandOR on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 01:58:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Weak Effort (none)
      It's not enough to send an e-mail, as the article notes.

      You need live sound bites for TV and hourly newscasts.   They need content.

      The thug ran every cappo up to a mic yesterday, giving outlets material to pick and choose.

      The Dems, sent weak mouthed Daschle, who didn't even look into the camera, in the bite I saw.

      Why do Dems have to learn everything the hard way.

    •  What is really curious about this (none)
      is that it appears that Berger who has known he was under investigation since last October told Clinton about it but never mentioned it to Kerry.

      If I was Kerry, I'd be pissed off that I was kept in the dark about this, particularly since Bill was not.

      It also may explain why there has been so little in the way of counter spin coming out of the Kerry campaign.  They are just going to let Berger twist in the wind of his own making.

  •  WTF is "Ongoing Investigation"? (none)
    Mr. Burger violates the law.  He is discovered, and he files a deposition.  Ca. 9 months later we hear that "there is an ongoing investigation" that probably will not result in any charges.

    I wonder what is going on in such an "ongoing investigation"?  It seems that the case is so minute that after a day or two, it should be clear if there is anything there at all -- in terms of charges that could be filed.

    So for nine months the "ongoingness" of this amounted to the fact that the file existed and that it did not carry the stamp "CASE CLOSED".  But it was never much of a case, as James Woolsey points out.

    Nice to know that being a PNAC-er allows to keep some humanity, unlike being a DeLay.
    DeLay is an extortionist who in a well-run state would grace a penitentiary.  For him, and the rest of his corrupt ilk, to pontificate about evils of this stupid case is just one another example of their cheek and hypocrisy.

    •  Good points (none)
      You'll remember that (at least in the books), Saruman and Wormtongue never really did admit any error.  

      And both of them were presumably decent creatures (wizard and man) at some point in their lives, whereas there's no evidence that DeLay ever was.

      I define truth as the system of my limitations, and leave absolute truth for those who are better equipped for it. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

      by Steady Eddie on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 02:08:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NO SIMILAR OUTRAGE ON BUSH REcDS (none)
    As the subject says above.

    There was plenty of outrage in the blogs.

    Yet there was no one on the Hill to provide a sound bite.  There was no one on the Hill to give it the energy it needed to make it controversial enough for Tv and the Dailies to make it a big deal.  The Nets want and need heated subjects, they don't care about policy.  But if the Dems would provide the heat, they're not going to turn on the lights.

    The Dems let them get away with everything.

  •  But wait! (none)
    Sean Hannity says we are politicizing this and trying to take attention way from the crime that was committed. He says we are just acting like we always do.

    HOW CAN YOU PEOPLE BE SO BLIND?

    Okay, back to reality. For one thing, what crime was committed? Unless something happened while I was at work, no charge have been filed.

  •  Man, Kerry has got to handle this personally (none)
    If we can't trust him to stand up forthrightly against Delay & Hastert, how can we trust him to stand up to bin Laden, Zawahiri, and the rest?

    IMO he has got to come out, guns blazing.

    Why? Because it is wildly clear that this is spin and intimidation.  

    Handling it with finesse, with surrogates, with smarter=than-you maneuvers will work, of course. But, properly handled, this is a chance to gain ground, big time, with the red states. If only, if only he will strike a heroic posture.

    Otherwise, it's just an opportunity lost.  

    I yearn for the sort of plain speaking we used to get from the Governor.

  •  Kerry Getting Secert Info From Berger D-BUNKED! (none)
    Read this @ Slate

    Third, Berger was an adviser to John Kerry's campaign. (He quit over this fracas.) Republicans are accusing him of swiping the documents and handing them to Kerry as political ammo. This makes no sense. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry could obtain the documents--which had also been supplied to the 9/11 commission--of his own accord. More than that, Kerry's chief national security adviser, Rand Beers, was a staff member of the National Security Council, working on terrorism, under Presidents Clinton and Bush. He saw these documents, probably helped write some of them; he could certainly tell Kerry about them.

    Hoping this "leak" ends up burning the Bush.

  •  NO SIMILAR OUTRAGE (none)
    Some days I feel as if we're fighting over the corpse of a dead democracy.
     
  •  Hear Hear (none)
    Happy to hear all of this. I stand corrected.
  •  David Gergen (none)
    is on Hardball and he says that Berger's lawyer told him that Berger is not accused of taking any original documents, only copies.  The 9/11 committee has the originals.  He said there was not a break in the paper chain.  Even Tony Blankley says it's implausible that he took the documents in order to cover something up.  He suggests that maybe Berger just had a lot to read and wanted to take it home so it would be easier.
  •  reasons for optimism (none)
    Scandals which are not understandable do not fly.  The idea of a heinous crime that a person who is allowed to read a document takes notes while reading and keeps them is ... not obvious.

    Number two, journalists of all people should be least appalled.  It is the stock in trade for them to be shown classified documents, or even getting copies.  Berger is once and future source.  Wasn't Taguba report classified?

    We still suffer from stupid pseudo-scandals like "hate fest", but this particular dog ain't gonna hunt.

  •  Here (none)
    is the rub. Why we aren't hearing the truth from Democrats and Clinton aides.

    This from a recent UK Telegraph article:

    Described both as a dissident cleric and a former fighter, Harbi, who is also known as Abu Suleiman al-Makki, is married to the daughter of Ayman Zawahiri, bin Laden's chief ideologue and effective deputy, who remains at large.
    Harbi, who is in his forties, contacted the Saudi Arabian embassy in Teheran from a hideout on the Iran-Afghanistan border asking to be taken in under a Saudi government amnesty extended to terrorists three weeks ago.

    Saudi authorities described him as being "stranded" in the border region from where he was taken to Teheran and subsequently flown to Riyadh yesterday accompanied by a woman and a child.

    Harbi was taken to hospital after being carried off the plane in a wheelchair to which he has been confined after being paralysed by a piece of shrapnel which hit him in the back as he was fighting in Bosnia.

    A veteran of the Afghan guerrilla war against the Soviet army, Harbi trained under bin Laden, fighting at his side in the 1980s and returning to the battlefield in Bosnia.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/14/walq14.xml

    I don't think they fought for Milosevic and the Christian Orthodox Serbs in that one.

    The Left v. Right debate is a farce. Presented to you by the true sponsors of global terror.

    This is a great example of how the Left is being manipulated. Scott Ritter.

    Don't squander this excellent opportunity to get at the truth and reform the way we do business around the world and at home.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site