Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Pretty sure the government archives actually contain the originals. I don't believe the reading room uses copies of the originals. Of course there may be multiple original copies of each document, since they were distributed, and perhaps he was trying to stuff them all in his pants.

I previously thought that I had specifically read that he was looking at copies; now I'm not sure.

I have a hard time believing (a) that a former National Security Advisor would be stuffing documents in his pants or socks, or (b) that someone at the Archives witnessing this wouldn't do something. It just smells wrong.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I don't think I did. You justified the retention of occupied territories on the basis that it's traditional for "war" victors to do so --- a proposition with which I'm not sure I agree, at least as far as the 20th century was concerned. After all, we conquered the Nazis, then gave Germany to the Germans --- sorta. I still say war conquest is a bad analogy for what happens to Israel's borders. Besides, conquest is not always accompanied by the lynchpin of international recognition of the new borders. See Iraq/Kuwait, 1991. The world is filled with disputed territorial claims, some of which go back to centuries-old conquests. If nobody recognizes your border as your border, it's not legitimate. Of course, if the U.S. alone recognizes it, it might be a different matter, but that's not a principled distinction.

Well that makes things clear. I didn't know what you meant by the whole "this is not a war" line.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have a hard time believing (a) that a former National Security Advisor would be stuffing documents in his pants or socks, or (b) that someone at the Archives witnessing this wouldn't do something. It just smells wrong.

Indeed. If Berger goes on trial, they'll be handling Exhibit A with tweezers.

I don't know what to make of this story. This is the kind of crime that makes it into the Weird News or Dumb Criminals section, and the guy was Cabinet-level.

I'm going to reserve judgment, the way I did on Iraqi WMDs.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find it extremely peculiar that Lanny Breuer has been dealing with DOJ on this matter for nine months, and -- if you read the interview with him on CNN from two nights ago -- seemed to think he knew what the allegations against his client were, and yet it wasn't this "five drafts" stuff. If I were in Breuer's shoes, I would be pretty irritated to be finding out about these allegations from unnamed sources in the press.

Nor does it make any sense to me. The articles suggest he was dealing with copies, not originals.* It's not like he's going to remove all copies from the government archives.

But maybe the allegations are all correct. Who knows.

* eta: Maybe I'm wrong about this.

eata: Since you don't think this was a "mistake," what's the motive?

The obvious motive is to cover his ass, but I don't think that is the case. The second theory I heard floating was that he wanted to give the info to the Kerry campaign, which I also don't think is the case.

The pertinent thing to me is that he took multiple drafts of the same document, likely to see what changed from version to version. I'd guess that would be helpful to prep for the 9/11 commission, and also to see whether he fucked up or not (e.g., something he knew about got stripped out of the final draft).

eta: BUt that doesn't explain why he took the docs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I previously thought that I had specifically read that he was looking at copies; now I'm not sure.

.

AP Article:

Former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire said he understands the documents involved are copies and that the originals are available, adding, "I have known Sandy Berger for a long time and I find it very difficult to ascribe any sinister motive for what he did."

We're all acting on incomplete information. I would be somewhat surprised either way. Having extra copies of highly secret docs isn't great for document control (it's a bit harder to say you lost something if there are multiple copies). Of course, one of the first rules of archiving is that you make copies of everything for viewing and then lock away the originals.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The obvious motive is to cover his ass, but I don't think that is the case. The second theory I heard floating was that he wanted to give the info to the Kerry campaign, which I also don't think is the case.

The 9/11 Commission has already said they saw everything, and the idea that he needed drafts of that particular document to give anything to the Kerry people is a little silly. Rand Beers was another of the authors, and he's working for the Kerry campaign. Plus, Kerry gets to see stuff of that sort as a senator. So agree on both counts.

The pertinent thing to me is that he took multiple drafts of the same document, likely to see what changed from version to version. I'd guess that would be helpful to prep for the 9/11 commission, and also to see whether he fucked up or not (e.g., something he knew about got stripped out of the final draft).

That's exactly the reason Breuer gave -- that he was trying to refresh his recollection about what happened in the deliberations about that document so that he could testify to the commission. But it hardly means he needs to walk out with the document.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The 9/11 Commission has already said they saw everything, and the idea that he needed drafts of that particular document to give anything to the Kerry people is a little silly. Rand Beers was another of the authors, and he's working for the Kerry campaign. Plus, Kerry gets to see stuff of that sort as a senator. So agree on both counts.

A leak by this by the GOP makes no sense because (1) it serves them no political gain - they had the early 9/11 report and knew it wasnt going to blame Bush (or Clinton) so there was no need for spin, and (2) it allowed the Dems to question the "timing" of the revelation.

On the other hand, the Dems have a lot to gain - especially the new presumptive Sec of State candidate Holbrooke - because (1) it saves Kerry the embarrassment of "his" guy getting busted for this investigation closer to the election, (2) it only slightly mars the party right before the convention "bump", (3) they can publicly blame the GOP for it and switch the controversy (judging by the NYT, it worked).

This smells like typical timed leak strategy by Kendall, Lockhart, et al.

And that a lot of Josh's buddies and guys like Yglesias ALSO think it was Dems make you have to say Hmmm.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A leak by this by the GOP makes no sense because (1) it serves them no political gain - they had the early 9/11 report and knew it wasnt going to blame Bush (or Clinton) so there was no need for spin, and (2) it allowed the Dems to question the "timing" of the revelation.

On the other hand, the Dems have a lot to gain - especially the new presumptive Sec of State candidate Holbrooke - because (1) it saves Kerry the embarrassment of "his" guy getting busted for this investigation closer to the election, (2) it only slightly mars the party right before the convention "bump", (3) they can publicly blame the GOP for it and switch the controversy (judging by the NYT, it worked).

This smells like typical timed leak strategy by Kendall, Lockhart, et al.

And that a lot of Josh's buddies and guys like Yglesias ALSO think it was Dems make you have to say Hmmm.

The 9/11 report is coming out, which cannot help Bush vis-a-vis Kerry, and this distracts from it. And Democrats get no mileage from questioning the timing of this.

Dems have nothing to gain unless you assume it's going to come out anyway, and, in any event, it's pretty clear the Kerry campaign didn't know about it.

If you're Berger, you want the thing never to come out at all. You want it to go away, so you can become Secretary of State.

And there are too many "law enforcement" and "government" officials furiously leaking about this now for it to be a Dem job alone.

eta: Here's a good piece about the story by Fred Kaplan in Slate. The only quibble I had with it is that when Breuer said that what Berger did wasn't illegal, he was referring specifically to Berger's taking of notes, not more generally to other allegations, a distinction Kaplan missed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
AP Article:

[Rudman praising Berger's ethics]

We're all acting on incomplete information. I would be somewhat surprised either way. Having extra copies of highly secret docs isn't great for document control (it's a bit harder to say you lost something if there are multiple copies). Of course, one of the first rules of archiving is that you make copies of everything for viewing and then lock away the originals.

Frankly, I rarely assume anyone in high office is above something like this, though it's nice to hear Rudman praising a Dem.

I'm not overly concerned about the leak, for some reason. It strikes me there's a live issue here, it should be resolved, and if Berger's been a bad boy he should take his lumps. I'm not sure why any of it should be a Bush/Kerry thing.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The 9/11 report is coming out, which cannot help Bush vis-a-vis And there are too many "law enforcement" and "government" officials furiously leaking about this now for it to be a Dem job alone.

No, of course not. Now every "unnamed source" in DC is scurrying to be on the record "off the record."

The only question is who made the initial call. Look at who scooped the story - John Solomon.

As you may know, John Solomon is the reporter that Clinton/Berger pal Lanny Davis famously admitted to be his favorite go-to reporter for releasing information. The same Lanny Davis who bragged in his book about "leaking bad info early to control the spin"

It's all too clean.

eta: Not that it matters, but I still cannot fathom the WHY.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, of course not. Now every "unnamed source" in DC is scurrying to be on the record "off the record."

The only question is who made the initial call. Look at who scooped the story - John Solomon.

As you may know, John Solomon is the reporter that Clinton/Berger pal Lanny Davis famously admitted to be his favorite go-to reporter for releasing information. The same Lanny Davis who bragged in his book about "leaking bad info early to control the spin"

It's all too clean.

eta: Not that it matters, but I still cannot fathom the WHY.

So Lanny Breuer, former Clinton counsel, called Solomon. But what necessitated that call, since they investigation has been ongoing for some months and appears to be winding up?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So Lanny Breuer, former Clinton counsel, called Solomon. But what necessitated that call, since they investigation has been ongoing for some months and appears to be winding up?

If Breuer was going to call Solomon, why wait until now? Why not (e.g.) two days before Condi Rice testified before the 9/11 Commission?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So Lanny Breuer, former Clinton counsel, called Solomon. But what necessitated that call, since they investigation has been ongoing for some months and appears to be winding up?

This has the Clintons written all over it . . . it's all about Hil

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/25403.htm

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This has the Clintons written all over it . . . it's all about Hil

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/25403.htm

So Clinton had his own former National Security Advisor torched? Yeah, that makes sense. From what I've read, there weren't a lot of people in the Clinton White House closer to Bill on a personal level than Berger.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
So Clinton had his own former National Security Advisor torched? Yeah, that makes sense. From what I've read, there weren't a lot of people in the Clinton White House closer to Bill on a personal level than Berger.

Ty, you forget that the Clintons have a history of cutting the cord from prior FOB's once they get into the slightest trouble. Honed survival techniques to a new art.

What does leaking it before Condi's testimony do? Remember, the GOP was already on the ropes at that time because of Clarke's one-sided testimony.