A lot of inadvertence . . .

Washington Times ^ | 7/23/04 | Cal Thomas

[kattracks]

[snip]

In a statement, Mr. Berger said he "inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives" and when informed they were missing, he immediately returned everything he had "except for a few documents that apparently I had accidentally discarded." That's a lot of inadvertence and accidentalness for such a former high-ranking official.
    Imagine the reaction if the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, had done such a thing and made a similar excuse. Democrats and the New York Times would be calling for her head and demanding she be sent to prison for breaking the law. "Accidentally" and "inadvertently" would not absolve her in their minds.
    That Mr. Berger felt a need to slip some of the classified documents in his jacket and stuff others in his pants may say something about his true motive. If Mr. Berger was behaving lawfully, why would he not follow lawful procedures, including asking permission to remove notes he took from the classified documents, which included drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium observance? Archive officials and Mr. Berger's lawyer say those documents still are missing. Officials said other missing documents identified U.S. airports and seaports vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The FBI searched Mr. Berger's home and office.
    In testimony before the September 11 commission March 24, Mr. Berger said the Clinton administration made combating terrorism an "early priority." He also claimed the administration did all it could to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and "getting him and his lieutenants became our priority."
    Might those purloined documents have told a different story? Is it a convenience they are missing, like those "missing" documents from Hillary Clinton's Rose Law Firm that suddenly materialized inside the White House after they had been "inadvertently misplaced" and were unavailable to the inquiring eyes of the Independent Counsel and the grand jury?
    Mr. Berger, like the author of some of the missing documents, Richard Clarke, has been highly critical of the Bush administration for the war in Iraq and its battle against terrorism. Mr. Berger might have been looking for documents that, however inadvertently or accidentally, could have put the claims of the Clinton administration into some doubt.
    Mr. Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, acknowledges his client was in "technical violation of Archives procedure, but it is not clear to us this represents a violation of the law." Only high-priced lawyers make and understand such distinctions. If normal people did this, we'd be doing the perp walk for the cameras.

[snip]

[thegreatbeast]

Later

[Bonaparte]

Odd that nobody in the media is focusing on the NA staffers. The staffers who were charged with primary responsibility for the integrity of those records. The staffers who repeatedly let him walk out with documents. The staffers who placed phone calls to Bruce Lindsay.

Why are they not all under arrest?

[Jeff Chandler]

There's a whole lot of inadvertence goin' on.

[lainde]

Your point has been disturbing me for the past 72 hours. They call Bruce Lindsey? They just let him take the stuff...Into the bathroom...And when he shooed them out while he made "Phone calls"????

[randita]

Your point has been disturbing me for the past 72 hours. They call Bruce Lindsey? They just let him take the stuff...Into the bathroom...And when he shooed them out while he made "Phone calls"????

Makes sense if you consider that there might have been a camera installed in the Archive room. Read on another thread that Lindsey is the point man for Archive documents relating to the Clinton Administration. That's apparently standard procedure, so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for him to be contacted when a problem with the documents popped up.

[Bonaparte]

"...that Lindsey is the point man for Archive documents relating to the Clinton Administration."

When documents relevant to the Clinton administration are stolen from the NA and the staff are not only aware of the theft but of the thief, has it been NA administrative policy to contact Bruce Lindsey or is the directive to contact the appropriate federal law enforcement authorities?

[Bonaparte]

On the basis of what has been reported so far, I can't escape the clear impression that some NA staff acted as accomplices to these thefts.

• They saw him conceal these papers on his person.

• They let him take them out of the reading room and out of the NA building, not just once, but on several occasions.

• They permitted him to make unauthorized cel calls from the records reading room and to order them out as he did so.

• They failed to report his criminal conduct to federal law enforcement.

• They instead called Bruce Lindsay, who has nothing to do with federal law enforcement and has everything to do with Clinton and Berger.

These are not the kinds of things National Archives guards and staffers are paid to do -- in fact, they are tasked with doing just the opposite.

These are just the sorts of things accomplices do.

[freeperfromnj]

He "inadvertenly" took them and then "accidently" threw them out. Sounds like a pretty inept NSA to me. Those that are out there defending him are making complete fools of themselves. If David Gerkin only knew how ridiculous he sounds trying to defend Berger.

[Bonaparte]

It's not the first time a shill like Gergen has defended the indefensible. And "inept" is not the word I would use to describe these so-called guards -- especially since they called Bruce Lindsay rather than their supervisor or security or federal law enforcement.