WASHINGTON — While reviewing national security documents from
the Clinton Administration in preparation for his appearance before
the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Clinton administration’s former
national security adviser, Mr. Samuel R. Berger, was observed
stuffing them in his socks by employees at the National Archives.
Soon he was accused of taking these documents — memos, draft
documents, e-mails, that sort of thing — from the Archives in
breach of the law, and he was duly charged. All of this took place
a couple of years ago, and those of us who had followed the Clinton
high jinks with more diligence than the rest of the press had a
good laugh. Once again we were vindicated and the rest of the press
went into another episode of disappointment. As throughout the
1990s, the Best and the Brightest of the Clinton Saga had been
caught flagrante delicto — and let me add
flagrante hilarious. Berger really did pack the documents
in his socks.
Yet there was a debate among us Clinton sleuths that now has
been settled. After Berger pleaded guilty, many of us accepted his
explanation, namely, that he was simply too lazy to read through
all the material in the uncomfortable quarters made available to
him at the Archives. He wanted to read them at home in the presence
of loved ones, the family cat, and Fleetwood Mac on the sound
system. He had grimmer critics with a darker reading. They believed
that in the aftermath of 9/11 historians were going to be more
exacting in their readings of the Clinton record on terror and if
White House documents showed laxity the historians would report it.
Thus these Clinton sleuths argued that Berger was making off with
embarrassing documents to destroy or perhaps to revise.
We moderates said nonsense. That would be a brazen breach of
ethics. Moreover, it would be very risky. Surely the Archives would
not let Berger see original documents or documents that had not yet
been catalogued. Anything he stole or disfigured would have a
backup document. How naive we were. Thanks to a Congressional
report released this week, we now know that Berger was allowed to
look over (and quite likely filch) files of materials from the
Clinton administration that had yet to be archived and were very
germane to how historians will judge him and his boss.
According to the Washington Post, the Congressional
report “said Berger took a special interest during his early visits
[to the Archives] in files from the office of former White House
counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke, which included
uninventoried draft documents, memos, e-mail messages and
hand-written notes.” “Had Berger removed papers,” the report notes,
“…it would be almost impossible for Archives staff to know.”
In other words, the National Archives blundered badly when it
gave Berger access to documents that were unrecorded and uncopied.
Berger, an admitted liar, has almost certainly lied about what he
did with these documents. And historians will probably never know
what notations they contained or even if they contained major
revelations about the Clinton administration’s assessment and
treatment of terrorists in the years before 9/11.
What we do know is that the Clinton sleuths now have still more
evidence of the Clinton administration’s abuse of power and
fundamental lawlessness. The administration’s public record is
replete with the Clintons’ obstructing investigations by
withholding documents. Just recall Hillary’s subpoenaed billing
records from the Rose Law Firm that were kept for months from the
Independent Counsel before they appeared magically in her living
quarters. Or remember when her aides illegally entered the just
deceased Vince Foster’s White House office to carry off materials
that only law enforcement officials should have seen.
The Democrats now repine over a Republican “Culture of
Corruption.” Well, it did not start with the Republicans. I can
find no historic parallel for what Bill Clinton’s National Security
Adviser Berger did at the National Archives, and he got off with a
misdemeanor. From this week’s Congressional Report it appears to me
that he stole documents, possibly destroyed them, and apparently
corrupted Archives officials and officials in the Justice
Department. Cultures of corruption have a way of spreading. When I
read of Senator Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House I wonder,
do the Democrats want to go through this degraded debate all over
again?
