Pejman Yousefzadeh poses the fair question, in view of Marshall’s recent posts:
A bit more on the Berger story. . . .
. . . . it seems equally clear that the surfacing of this matter is the product of a malicious leak intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 commission report.
Umm, yes. Berger, a former National Security Advisor walks out, on more than one occasion, with top secret documents stuffed in his clothes — his pants, his socks, God knows where else. It may be a crime. It is, at a minimum, so stupid that it almost requires the invention of a new word. (To Bergerize, perhaps?) And we should be focused on the fact that we happened to find out about it?
(And this from a man who — rightly, in my view — called for the heads of the Plame-name players: “Plame leak shameful no matter how the White House spins it.”)
Sorry, friends: Berger’s “berglary” is shameful — no matter how it’s spun.
I’m confused.
Is ‘stuffing in his pants’ a euphemism for ‘putting in his pockets’?
Is ‘stuffing in his pants’ a euphemism for ‘putting in his pockets’?
Well, my phrase was “stuffed in his clothes — his pants, his socks, God knows where else.” Which would include, I guess, any pockets in pants, socks, or whatever else.
Sorry, friends: Berger’s “berglary” is shameful — no matter how it’s spun.
Yes, it makes the malicious leak of a CIA operative’s covert status look like double parking. (And this leak was designed to create just that talking point.) Nice to see the moral compass of the right is spinning in its own magnetic field.
In other news, von was found with a printout of a GOP talking-points email stuffed up his ass.
In other news, von was found with a printout of a GOP talking-points email stuffed up his ass.
Sure, you can believe that the GOP talking points instructed me to call for the heads of the Plame-leakers, and then apply the same moral standards to Sandy Berger. Of course, if it’s true, I’ll need to reconsider my decision not to vote for Bush this time ’round.
“Sorry, friends: Berger’s “berglary” is shameful — no matter how it’s spun.”
Yes, it was quite stupid, and certainly deserves to be condemned. As is being done, everywhere. (If one looks att Memeorandum, for instance, it appears that no other news has happened today, other than to Linda Rondstadt, and that apparently Berger dwarfs the Rosenbergs.)
The question of how it happens that this bit of irresponsible trivia just happens to be leaked, months after the event, two days before the release of the Commission’s final Report, remains valid. Amazing coincidence? Sure, that’s possible. Convenient, though.
I think it’s very very likely that the leak is politically timed, but what else is new.
Marshall did say that the timing of the leak and Berger’s guilt are totally separate issues.
I sincerely doubt that this ranks up there with L’Affaire Plame in terms of either malice or damage done, but that’s a guess & presumably time will tell. Very stupid, at a minimum.
I think Joshy-poo is angling to be Kerry’s Blumenthal.
Marshall did say that the timing of the leak and Berger’s guilt are totally separate issues.
Yes, he did state as much. The purpose of the post, however, was to change the subject to friendlier territory — to speculation about the motives of the accusers.* It’s a well-worn trick, and one that has worn out its welcome with me.
von
*When could such information be divulged without accusations (true or not) of political timing? During the 9-11 hearings? After a bout of bad news on Iraq? Two days after the 9-11 report issues? Is there one day out of fifty?
Von, watch your sites. From the same wonkette post you reference:
“Now it turns out that the socks thing is probably not true, but we don’t care. It’s the best made-up political news since Kerry didn’t sleep with his intern!”
After reading your post, I would tend to agree! Who cares if the sock story is true. It’s a delicious rumor, after all.
Followup.
This story reads so much like the “Chinese spy at Los Alamos” story that I’m going to wait for a while before forming an opinion.
It’s the prosecutorial version of the “Chewbacca defence”
If there might be a missing disk drive, he must be a Chicom spy let in by Clinton’s lax security policies!
I don’t claim that Berger didn’t do “something”. I’m betting that he didn’t do the stuff that people are making up as fast as he coud type. (Hiding desperately incriminating evidence is the one that springs up most often. I just ain’t buying that one.)
Finally, leaking classified material is *not* in itself a crime. Really, truly, it’s not. There are specific types of technical data (weapon blueprints) and operationally-sensitive material (like, ahem, identities of undercover “operatives”) that it is illegal to leak.
But leaking classified information is not in itself a federal felony. And with damn good reason.
“The purpose of the post, however, was to change the subject”
What’s the mind-reading penalty on this blog?
“When could such information be divulged without accusations (true or not) of political timing? During the 9-11 hearings? After a bout of bad news on Iraq? Two days after the 9-11 report issues? Is there one day out of fifty?”
For starters, the Iraq bit isn’t fair. And perhaps shunting “true or not” into a parenthesis is begging the question.
really, truly final followup.
This article at “Reason” agrees much better with my assessment of Berger. He’s just not the Gordon Liddy type; he’s your basic State Department drone.
“Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has been caught with his pants on fire, and such is the gravity of the crisis that experts everywhere are solemnly avoiding the temptation toward instant position taking that occasionally mars the public discourse. But what the hell: I’m going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess as to what was in those documents Berger secreted close by his membrum virile: I’m predicting it was something that makes Sandy Berger look stupid.
“That doesn’t mean the missing classified documents—which reportedly include several drafts of an after-action report on anti-terrorism during the millennium celebrations, handwritten notes, index cards treating the Middle East peace talks, and a paper cutout of a turkey made from a tracing of Berger’s own hand and marked “To Maddy, Hapy (sic) Thanksgiving, 1997″—will not provide more general embarrassment for the Clinton administration; or that they don’t comprise materials necessary for a full rendering of the 9/11 Commission’s report; or that they might not give a boost to the embattled Bush White House.
….
“When could such information be divulged without accusations (true or not) of political timing?”
Here’s a wacky thought: when the Justice Department actually divulges said information?
Here I read:
Clearly the guy committed quite a terrible crime and the dire effects from it could damage U.S. security by… well, we’ll think of something. (Yes, it was stupid to write down notes when you’re not supposed to, and if he took away actual copies, that’s stupider yet; but how is this not trivia used for politics?)
Von, watch your sites. From the same wonkette post you reference . . .
I plead “being a bit cheeky.”
But leaking classified information is not in itself a federal felony. And with damn good reason.
It all depends — in some cases on the identity of the information and in some on the identity of the leader. And I don’t say Berger committed a crime; I say he may have (just as the Plame-namers may have), which, based on present reporting, is accurate.
What’s the mind-reading penalty on this blog?
Oh, come now Rilkefan. You’ve seen this game played before, right? It is still permissible to apply reason to events produce a conclusion, no?
(Kerry’s leading with the same message, btw. And the same standard you imply would indict Josh Marshall.)
Incidentally, I fall into the “likely a stupid screw-up” camp rather than the “malicious evildoer” camp.
leader = leaker in the above. Apologies.
The question of how it happens that this bit of irresponsible trivia just happens to be leaked, months after the event, two days before the release of the Commission’s final Report, remains valid.
Riiight. Probably they ought to have waited on this, in order to avoid the appearance of a diversion. But then, no time is good these days, is it?
Finally, leaking classified material is *not* in itself a crime. Really, truly, it’s not.
Mac, I hereby declare you brown-eyed. This is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation I’ve read in recent times, and that’s saying a lot. Compromise of any classified material can get you prison time. But then, what do I know? I’ve only been working with the stuff for the last couple of decades. Does this mean Berger will certainly do time? I have no idea. Deutch could have actually compromised data that was much more potentially damaging, and he actually got to hang onto his clearance for a while.
Clearly the guy committed quite a terrible crime and the dire effects from it could damage U.S. security by..
Did Berger commit a crime, yes, did the crime damage U.S. security, well no (probably just trying to bury some garbage, embarassing but not life threatening).
Is it similar to Plamegate, yes, the Republicans are going overboard (just like the Democrats did with Plamegate) and playing some games.
What is the solution? Put politics aside and address the SOBs who are pursuing nuclear weapons and trying to kill us. A good place to start is focusing on who shipped “yellow cake” to Libya, who paid for it and where we do we currently stand on the M.E. nuclear weapons bazaar.
It still is a big problem, we’ve had some breaks, some wins but there are still alot of monster out there; who are either going to have to change their ways or be killed. That is, there is no middle ground. As soon as you buy into this, progress begins.
“Oh, come now Rilkefan. You’ve seen this game played before, right? It is still permissible to apply reason to events produce a conclusion, no?”
Sure, then I get to apply reason to your post/comment and not bother following up on my first (suspended) reaction (“Gee, von sure seems surly some days – he has a stressful job. And he’s unhappy with his electoral choices, leading to undue vehemence. And he’s a bit jealous of Josh, as many outside the left of the blogsphere seem to be lately. Hence the eagerness to jump to conclusions and the selective misreading of the typically fair and informative TPM post.”)
What I want to know is why.
It doesn’t sound like he really could have removed the documents inadvertantly. Why did he do it? It doesn’t make sense to me.
And what about the documents he ‘inadvertantly destroyed’. Does the archive know for sure what those documents were? The reporting on this seems really shoddy.
How is he covering up anything by stealing copies of documents? The word “copies” implies there is at least one other document with the exact same content. If he is so damn smart as to have knowingly broken the rules for political advantage, shouldn’t he have known that it was futile b/c the VRWC could just make another copy?
One last one comment for the unnecessarily rude Slart.
I said that leaking classified material is not in itself a crime. What is a crime is leaking “intelligence”. In the words of the experts at “Counterintelligence Center”, intelligence (stuff that we found out about bad guys via secret means) should be treated as a separate category from “classified information” which includes stuff like war plans, diplomatic plans, and perhaps, “after-action reports”. Here’s the word from the guys that care about this stuff. Yes, they say it’s very bad, etc, etc. They also say it’s not illegal except in specific cases.
Here’s the money quote. He’s talking about intelligence, and even for that it’s a grey area. (Which is kind of scary, eh?) The grey area comes in because leaking classified information is not in itself illegal.
“Is leaking classified intelligence against the law? Probably—but it depends on who you ask. …
“It is precisely the legal ambiguity of leaking that is the heart of the problem here. Certainly there are laws against it—chiefly the 1917 espionage law Title 18 USC, Sections 793 (d)-(e), and 798; and the narrower Title 50, Section 421. One could devote a whole legal seminar to what is wrong with these laws—I urge this committee to consider this—but suffice it to say here, in my layman’s view, that a law that is almost never enforced is either unneeded or useless. I contend that anti-leaks laws are seriously needed—but since the present ones are virtually unenforceable, they are useless.
….
My son’s birthday was this last weekend, and friends learned from email sources that we succeeded in acquiring yellow cake from QFC.
I agree with Sebastian that the reporting is really sloppy. Obviously spraying some facts out there is better than waiting for the accurate ones. How can documents be missing if he was taking copies? Are the handwritten notes ones he made right then or were they handwritten notes that were themselves in the archives? What region of his pants received the stuffing? Did little Sandy suffer from paper cuts? As always, I’ll be checking The Daily Show for the only sane coverage in the country.
“Probably they ought to have waited on this, in order to avoid the appearance of a diversion.”
Slarti, are you under the mis-impression there was some sort of official announcement? Who is the “they” you are referring to? The mysterious leakers? What do you know about this “they” that the rest of us do not? Who, precisely, do you think these “sources” are, and what considerations do you think they had in mind in their timing? I’d really like to know how you conceptualize this.
“…(probably just trying to bury some garbage, embarassing but not life threatening).”
By making notes? Unlikely. By carrying out an actual document? Do you have some citation that indicates there is reason to believe that Berger had his hands on the single extant copy of a document?
If not, than how was he going to accomplish this “burying”? Sympathetic magic?
“I said that leaking classified material is not in itself a crime. What is a crime is leaking ‘intelligence.'”
This is a weird statement insofar as it seems to indicate a belief that the only material that the government classifies is “intelligence” material, which is, of course, wildly untrue. Bringing up a paper that only addresses “classified intelligence” in the context of a discussion of classified material is like bringing up a paper that only addresses bullets in a discussion of military weapons systems; it’s valid, in the sense that it applies to 1% of the topic.
“By carrying out an actual document? Do you have some citation that indicates there is reason to believe that Berger had his hands on the single extant copy of a document?
If not, than how was he going to accomplish this “burying”? Sympathetic magic?”
Ok, I’m not convinced that Berger necessarily did something awful. But in a document intensive world, taking the most easily accessible copy of a document can be very effective in burying a document if no one other than you knows exactly what they are looking for. I’ve worked with document depositories with millions of pages, and if you got rid of the most accessible copy of a document, and I didn’t know exactly what it was, I can promise you that you almost certainly did as good a job as having destroyed the original.
Furthermore the reporting is so bad that I can’t tell for sure that it was only copies. It sounds to me like the documents that were inadvertantly destroyed were originals. But I can’t tell for sure from the reports.
I said that leaking classified material is not in itself a crime.
Repeating something that’s untrue doesn’t in any way make it more true, Mac. Here’s what is a crime: exposing classified information so that there’s even a possibility of it being compromised. I could go to jail for taking classified documents home. And given that I’ve worked in defense for over two decades, I can say that there are in fact severe penalties for exposing information that’s NOT WNINTEL (Warning Notice: Intelligence Sources and Methods Involved) or CNWDI (Critical Nuclear Weapons Design Information), although these two areas tend to be more sensitive.
I apologize for the snippiness, but it really, really annoys me when people just make things up. Unless you’ve got some sort of source that tells you that I can just walk home with SECRET data. In which case please share; it’d make my job a great deal easier.
More like: von really, really dislikes leaks of confidential information. In addition, the fact that Marshall is a light-years better better blogger than von does not lead to the conclusion that Marshall lacks an agenda, which agenda is unfortunately evident in this post.
von
Does questioning the accussers motives and timing have anything to do with people like you believing everything you hear?
The NYPost said Berger said he stuffed documents into his socks and took original documents but there is no truth to it. It is patently ridiculous.
Turn on your BS detector or plug it in or something.
Berger obviously broke the rules but it doesn’t look as blatantly and wantonly as you seem to believe.
By the way, before appearing before the 9/11 commission the vice-president bit the heads off a few bats to get in the mood. And, sources say Richard Clarke slipped Bob Novack the name of Valerie Plame in an attempt to discredit the administration. More condemning is that Novack knew and broadcast the name in complete compliance because he is attempting to bring down the US government so Gothor can begin his eternal rule.
Remember John Deutsch?
reckless. not criminal. and no information compromised.
Remember John Deutsch?
reckless. not criminal. and no information compromised.
Well, that certainly explains this. Why pardon a guy who hasn’t done anything wrong?
I’d have done prison time for doing what he did. Believe it.
Oh, and here’s the U.S. code that makes it a crime. And I quote:
And there you have it. There’s some mandatory sentencing guidelines that are a function of classification level and some other things, but the illegality of removing classified data and then…losing track of it cannot be disputed.
Slarti
You would have to be charged and convicted first. Deutsch was neither.
He was found to be grossly negligent not criminally negligent. He lost access privelegdes but was never charged with a crime.
I’m not interested in defending Deutsch. I posted to draw similarities to the Berger uproar. If anything if Berger’s account of events is true then his actions are miniscule in comparison to Deutsch’s. Yet Deutsch was never charged.
I know all of that, carsick. Conviction’s a prerequisite for penalties being applied. Still, why the pardon? Maybe this holds the answer. As of September 2000, the finger of God was about to touch Mr. Deutch. As follow-on to this IG investigation in Feb 2000. Here’s the money shot from that:
This, together with the Clinton pardon, make it evident that Deutch was on his way to something rather uncomfortable. Deutch was never found not guilty, BTW, because he never went to trial. It should be noted that it took over four years to elevate this entire escapade to the level of attention where further investigation (as recommended by the above) was begun.
The thing that ties both of these cases together is negligent handling of Codeword material. This is the sort of thing that you just CAN’T be screwing around with, and not be aware that you’re doing wrong.
Slarti, could you maybe answer my query from 3:20 a.m.? Thanks.
“The thing that ties both of these cases together is negligent handling of Codeword material.”
I’m in agreement with that statement.
btw Slarti
Do you have similarly outraged posts from when Plame was named because you certainly can find statutes concerning the criminality of that action.
And as you say:
“This is the sort of thing that you just CAN’T be screwing around with, and not be aware that you’re doing wrong.”
Sorry, Gary. I make it a policy never to answer questions that early in the morning. But now? Sure:
Slarti, are you under the mis-impression there was some sort of official announcement?
No.
Who is the “they” you are referring to?
Dunno. The leakers?
What do you know about this “they” that the rest of us do not?
Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Who, precisely, do you think these “sources” are, and what considerations do you think they had in mind in their timing?
Until new evidence shows up, I don’t care to speculate.
Not entirely satisfactory, I imagine. But that’s the Slartibartfastian Pause, for you. Waiting and seeing, that’s the ticket.
“But that’s the Slartibartfastian Pause, for you. Waiting and seeing, that’s the ticket.”
It is. But it’s not what you were doing when you wrote: “Riiight. Probably they ought to have waited on this, in order to avoid the appearance of a diversion. But then, no time is good these days, is it?”
You seem to have concluded that there was no political element to this leak, and were making mock both of the suggestion that there might be, and that there even could be. If those weren’t the points you were intending to make there, what were you trying to say?
What motivation might a leaker have to either “avoid the appearance of a diversion” or not so avoid? Justice? Truth must out?
If it wasn’t politically intended, what was the motivation?
And if you can’t suggest one, would you disagree that it is fair to suspect that that the most obvious motivation, the only one on the table, is the likely one? Which is to say that, absent another hypothesis, Ockham’s Razor strongly suggests that this was a politically motivated leak?
(Which doesn’t get Sandy Berger off the hook; it’s just something to not sweep away with a laugh.)
Do you have similarly outraged posts from when Plame was named because you certainly can find statutes concerning the criminality of that action.
I believe somewhere around that time this was being heatedly discussed, I said that if all of the things that were being claimed were true, someone ought to go to jail. I’d have to search the archives to point it out for you.
You seem to have concluded that there was no political element to this leak.
Seem being the keyword, here. No, I was merely underscoring what I thought to be an assumption on your part that there was something fishy going on. Besides the pilfering of documents, I mean. So…can we chalk this up to neither of us knowing, and leave it at that?
Which is to say that, absent another hypothesis, Ockham’s Razor strongly suggests that this was a politically motivated leak?
There’s a possibility (floated by Drum and others) that the leak was Democratic, not Republican. But, again: the motivations (or lack thereof) of the leakers are a distraction; the issue is whether a former NSA committed a crime.
Josh Marshall is a sicko-fart cheerleader of the DNC and all things democratic party. He is a reliable spinner for them. Take a problem, and Josh can make it look that it is all GOP fault. He has yet to own a single mistake from someone from his party. He is an infantile juvenile.
Pat Henry
You nailed it, von. Now I don’t have to take issue with the political angle being a result of a clean shave using William’s favorite weapon.
Josh Marshall is a sicko-fart cheerleader of the DNC
Well, that was special.
Pat Henry,
I’m sure there’s a valid point buried somewhere in your barrel of offensive rhetoric. Have a look at the posting rules for the site, and see if you want to rephrase.
If not, Moe’s recently shown me how to ban folks, and I’m itching to try it. Not a challenge, mind you, just fair notice that that’s how we handle instances of folks who pop in and spew rubbish like “sicko-fart” on this site.
I do believe in giving folks a second chance though, so if you care to rephrase, please do.
Pat, your poetry slam entry should go in the other thread.
Pat Henry,
I enjoy a good dig as much as the next guy, but I’m having trouble parsing that one. Is the fart sicko? Or the cheerleader? The visuals are really quite different you understand. Or maybe he is a cheerleader of sicko-farts, but then I didn’t know the DNC had that position available.
” No, I was merely underscoring what I thought to be an assumption on your part that there was something fishy going on.”
It’s not my assumption. It’s my extremely strong suspicion, which is demonstrably shared by many non-partisans, and, indeed, as I quoted, many Republican partisans.
“Besides the pilfering of documents, I mean. So…can we chalk this up to neither of us knowing, and leave it at that?”
I’ll certainly grant that I don’t know. I won’t give up my presumption until given a better one, because I believe it is based upon inductive reasoning and Ockham’s Razor.
Certainly you may argue with Trent Lott or David Gergen, if you like, that they shouldn’t be so partisan towards Democrats, if that’s what you believe is the case.
Or see Howard Kurtz’s quotes here.
“But, again: the motivations (or lack thereof) of the leakers are a distraction; the issue is whether a former NSA committed a crime.”
This is silly, von. You can, of course, say, “my issue is….” And you can announce that other observations are a distraction from your issue.
But, last I looked, we are all free to make observations about whatever issues we like, though, of course, as one of the blog-owners, you can choose to announce they’re off-topic for the thread, or whatever.
But as a matter of fact, there is no “the issue” in some sort of Platonic meaning, is there? There are simply different people’s different opinions as to what is important or interesting. Ex cathedra rulings can’t change that.
“von really, really dislikes leaks of confidential information.”
I must be way behind on this story.
“the fact that Marshall is a light-years better better blogger than von does not lead to the conclusion that Marshall lacks an agenda, which agenda is unfortunately evident in this post.”
I was exaggerating for ironic effect above – apples and oranges. Anyway, I think people of good will can have differing views of the importance of this story and hence the degree of politicization of the discussion of related issues. Of course Slart‘s wait-and-see attitude strikes me as wiser than either your or Josh’s reactions (though perhaps I’m just ignorant of insider info or expertise in making that assessment).
Those dumb repubs.
It would be much better to have Sandy Berger on the Kerry team until at least Labor Day then leak this, and it would certainly be better to have Handy Sandy make a headline splash after the commission report, not before. The only one who benefits from this particular timing is Kerry, and those silly kids down at the GOP fell for it… well…uhh… unless they didn’t have anything to do with it.
“Those dumb repubs.”
They do have to consider the possibility Berger might withdraw from Kerry’s campaign preemptively (why he hadn’t already is another mystery to me), the impending Olympic distraction, the danger Bush’s electoral situation becomes ensconsed in conventional wisdom with positive feedback effects, the impending Democratic convention, and who knows what else. It seems to me that there’s good synergy between these crotch-secrets stories and the 9/11 Commission report, the haggling over which is in full swing.
It’s my extremely strong suspicion, which is demonstrably shared by many non-partisans, and, indeed, as I quoted, many Republican partisans.
Consider me corrected. Still, there’s nothing at all like information there to back it up, is there? That you have company in baseless speculation doesn’t add any substance to the speculation. Might as well publicly consider the existence of UFOs and their impact on US politics.
because I believe it is based upon inductive reasoning and Ockham’s Razor.
Which leads me to believe that either you are unfamiliar with the principle of parsimony, or are just deceiving yourself. There are conclusions that require fewer assumptions, such as that the timing of this means nothing.
Slart’s wait-and-see attitude strikes me as wiser than either your or Josh’s reactions…
My ‘fan! Maybe I’m winning converts after all.
p.s. I’m still pausing, but for the record here’s some evidence for the smelly thesis:
But as a matter of fact, there is no “the issue” in some sort of Platonic meaning, is there? There are simply different people’s different opinions as to what is important or interesting. Ex cathedra rulings can’t change that.
How ’bout the issue should be Berger’s conduct, not how we found out about Berger’s conduct.
“They do have to consider the possibility Berger might withdraw from Kerry’s campaign preemptively (why he hadn’t already is another mystery to me)”
Huh? He did that yesterday. It’s been in every news publication since last night.
“How ’bout the issue should be Berger’s conduct, not how we found out about Berger’s conduct.”
Obviously you’re entitled to argue that case for your opinion, of course. But simple declaration doesn’t make it so. No more than if I declared the reverse (which I’ve not the faintest interest in doing).
How ’bout the issue should be Berger’s conduct, not how we found out about Berger’s conduct.
At this point in time, why not both?
“How ’bout the issue should be Berger’s conduct…”
Considering the bulk of information about this is potentially fabricated or speculated I don’t think we have much to go on other than Berger’s account unless the investigators have released their side of the story.
Nope. Still haven’t seen their side of the equation.
So we are left with Berger saying he took notes out that are against procedure but very possibly not against the law. And he claims he inadvertently took copies (not originals) of documents that he originally had generated when he was in the former administration.
All in preparation of his appearance in front of the 9/11 commission.
It may be a convictable offense but I’m having a tough time seeing how it could be a nefarious one.
He may be prosecuted simply to set the example in these anxious times but it doesn’t seem like an attempted cover-up in any way.
And secondly. Isn’t speculating on political motivations what threads and political blogs are partly about?
me:
Gary:
“Preemptive” was intended to convey the idea that Berger might have known the pool-pah was coming and quit his advisorship before the leak – “former Kerry advisor caught in pants-stuffing scandal” would have less eclat. Perhaps “do” would be better as “did”, but I was following Mac‘s tense.
I typed “better than”, not “better as”. I’m not able to type “better as”.
If not, than how was he going to accomplish this “burying”? Sympathetic magic?
Gary my answer was buried in today’s 9-11 Report, sorry I couldn’t respond any sooner. And since I haven’t read the report yet, I’ve relied on others
page xvii of the 9/11 Commission Report:
[via Instapundit]
From the footnotes on p. 482:
[via Tom Maguire]
Appears the after-action report is missing guess who the Commission relied on (and who was the last one to read it)?
I’m done.
“Appears the after-action report is missing guess who the Commission relied on (and who was the last one to read it)?”
Glenn is a very nice fellow, but he often is so hurried he doesn’t even read the articles he links to. Check, for instance, a few down from what you couldn’t be bothered to link to, his entry here, which says “RELIGION CRUSHING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH” but the story has nothing whatever about religion except a comparison in the first line. (Ah, I see that Glenn has responded to my e-mail to him with the assertion that “It’s the ‘religion’ of animal rights in Britain, a comparison that Virginia makes quite explicitly,” which only is true if the word “explicitly” has taken on the new meaning of “implicitly.” But I digress.)
Timmy, every single reputable news report has repeated that all Berger had access to was copies of documents (which hardly has to be mentioned; anyone with two brain cells knows that major reports are not made in only one copy, because it’s hard for dozens of people to read them otherwise (more typically hundreds).
If you can give a reputable cite that says otherwise, that says that all the copies of the reports in question were destroyed, save the one copy in the Archives, than the string of logic you present might have some credibility. If not, than it makes no sense whatever, does it?
And in regard to your question “and who was the last one to read it?” I don’t know: who was the last one to read it? If you wish to say “Sandy Berger in October of 2003,” I’m sure you can back that up with evidence, because how else could you make such a claim? Have you been reading the list of those who have accessed these documents at the Archives? Where would I find that, exactly?
So: who was the last one to read it, Timmy, since you ask?
Sandy Berger, who else?
Sorry Gary, I had to take a call. As for Glen and Tom, since I haven’t read the report and probably won’t until next week, I had to rely on third parties.
I find Tom to be very credible (similar to your cohorts at Winds of Change) and Glen to be less so but more expansive in what he covers. As for the media coverage of Berger (and even Joe Wilson), it appears to be very slow on the uptake IMHO.