Los Angeles Times Editors Pontificate on Berger
I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t followed every detail of the curious Sandy Berger case. But an editorial in this morning’s Los Angeles Times, titled The Berger Smoke Screen, makes assertions about the affair for which I haven’t seen proof:
Berger, who admits he made an “honest mistake,” is guilty of taking copies and handwritten notes (that too is a serious violation of the rules) but not original documents.
The editorial goes on to say:
Anyway, the problem with such theories would be that because the original documents remain in the National Archives, Berger would not have been able to deny the 9/11 commission access to them. Any attempted cover-up would not have covered anything up. Instead, he’s now drawn attention to the documents.
In the accounts I have read, there appears to be some dispute about whether the documents Berger took were true “copies” or “originals.” For example, this AP story says:
The Archives, which is the nation’s repository for presidential papers, is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents.
I find it hard to reconcile that quote with the assertions of the Times editors that all the originals remain in The Archives.
From what I have read, it appears that many of the documents were “copies” of a report on the millennium terror plot, but it also appears that some of those “copies” bore handwritten notes from Clinton administration officials. As this Washington Post story from today says:
[A] 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.
If the “handwritten notes from Clinton-era officials” are original notes, that would make these particular copies irreplaceable originals. Do the Times editors know the answer to this question?
I just don’t know how the Times editors conclude with such certainty that Berger took only copies. What do they know that I don’t?
As I say, I haven’t followed every twist and turn in this story. Maybe there’s evidence out there that I have missed. But I haven’t seen any proof that only copies were taken, except in numerous quotes from Berger’s attorney to the effect that Berger believed he was looking only at copies. I rather suspect the Times editors have simply decided to take as gospel the word of Berger, as expressed through his attorney — despite the other evidence I have cited.
UPDATE: A USA Today story says:
Other copies of the material still exist, and there is no indication that Berger’s action affected the commission’s investigation, a [9/11 Commission] panel spokesman has said.
I’m not sure how authoritative that statement is, in light of the revelation that the missing documents were copies of a single document — but contained different sets of handwritten notes on them. How does the panel spokesman know they still have copies of each version with the handwritten notes? The article doesn’t say.
UPDATE x2: Reader J.K. points to another quote in the Times editorial that asserts certain knowledge concerning a point that I had thought was still undecided: “By contrast, the motives for whoever in the administration leaked the Berger investigation appear clear enough.”
There are plenty of theories out there suggesting it was a leftist who leaked the investigation. For example, Kevin Drum says: “My guess is that some sharp Democratic operative figured out that this wasn’t going to stay a secret forever and decided (correctly) that it was better to get it into the open now rather than later.”
But Times editors somehow know it was someone in the Bush administration. It’s asserted in an offhand way, as though we all know and agree that this is a fact. The editors are not going to tell you how they “know” this, of course. Just trust them. They wouldn’t say it if they didn’t know it to be true. Right?
Apparently the title of the editorial, “The Berger Smoke Screen,” is also a good description of the editorial.
>Maybe there’s evidence out there that I have missed.
None that I am aware of. The WaPo article you cited seems to have the clearest recounting of what documents were/are missing.
Statements by Berger and his lawyers and spinners might count as further evidence, I guess, though they seem to have a “you gonna believe me or your own lyin’ eyes?” quality to them.
Maybe other commenters can point to reports that no primary material was removed by Berger.
Comment by AMac — 7/22/2004 @ 8:53 am
Why didn’t you post this at TLM?
Comment by Cluehammer — 7/22/2004 @ 11:02 am
I don’t cross-post everything. I still might post this, but my thinking in not doing so previously was that I don’t know for sure whether this is an example of bias or not. I suspect that it is, but because my time has been short lately, I am behind on my reading — so my base of knowledge on this issue is not strong as I would like.
I’m really trying to find out if I am missing something here.
Comment by Patterico — 7/22/2004 @ 12:02 pm
They seem to miss the point that if you or I, or even the publisher of the Times, had taken a copy of a single sentence of a top-secret-codeword document — even if we were cleared to read it — we’d be in prison for life.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 7/22/2004 @ 12:07 pm
I didn’t read anywhere that he took “copies” of the reports. I read he took “versions” of the report. Big difference - especially if the versions have notes or comments on them or contain information not included in the final report.
Comment by JT — 7/22/2004 @ 12:15 pm
Whether copies or not, they were still classified.
Comment by Mike — 7/22/2004 @ 12:21 pm
Maybe we should stop pretending that the LAT gives a hoot about anything other than de-electing Bush, even when we only do it for politeness anyway.
The LAT doesn’t really care about the breach of security and the betrayal, other than to find it annoyingly incvonvenient for awhile.
And they clearly are not worried about the increased security risk of having these docs lost in the wild (they include a list of air- and sea- port vulnerabilities, a terrorst’ wet-dream).
All the blogs can do is point this out to as many as will listen. Again and again.
Comment by localharbor — 7/22/2004 @ 2:38 pm
Whether copies or not, they were still classified.
Sure. Everyone concedes it’s wrong. But doesn’t it still make a big difference if they were irreplaceable originals?
Comment by Patterico — 7/22/2004 @ 6:27 pm
Patterico,
Not only were they irreplaceable originals, but they contain info that must be kept out of the hands of terrorists.
Would a terrorist be willing to buy a copy of every known US air- and sea- port vulnerability, including those that are currently being kept secret? Of course.
Are they actively looking to buy a copy right now? Of course again; why wouldn’t they?
Comment by localharbor — 7/22/2004 @ 10:05 pm
Patterico,
Been thinking about Berger again, and there seems to be a critical point that hasn’t been picked up yet, as far as I know.
Consider this:
So … the staff were on their toes and had figured Berger out. They created a document coding system specifically for monitoring his actions. They knew exactly which docs he was interested in stealing and they set up a sting. That sting included an extra copy of one of the docs in question.
None of this is in dispute. Do these staff sound dedicated and smart to you? They do to me.
So do you really believe that they didn’t bother to make, er, a few extra copies of the docs that they knew were being stolen and possibly destroyed? I don’t.
Also consider this too:
Berger fooled no one. Yes, the docs are still in the wild, and still a threat. But I’m betting Bush knows exactly what was in most of them.
-
Comment by localharbor — 7/22/2004 @ 11:42 pm
p.s. the 2nd link above was mis-entered and merely takes you to the same WAPO story as the first link. Sorry. It should have read: “this too“
Comment by localharbor — 7/23/2004 @ 12:00 am
[...] ves and have no notations at all. I reported the details of that “urban myth” here. It was originally reported in the Washington Post. [...]
Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » More on Bergler — 4/8/2005 @ 3:43 pm