- The Washington Times - Thursday, January 11, 2007

While reviewing national security documents from the Clinton administration in preparation for his appearance before the September 11 Commission hearings, the Clinton administration’s former national security adviser, 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 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. Mr. Berger really did pack the documents in his socks.

Yet there was a debate among us Clinton sleuths that now has been settled. After Mr. 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 with Fleetwood Mac on the sound system.

His grimmer critics had a darker reading. They believed that in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, historians would be more exacting in their readings of the Clinton record on terror: If White House documents showed laxity, the historians would report it. Thus these Clinton sleuths argued Mr. Berger was making off with embarrassing documents to destroy or 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Berger access to documents that were unrecorded and uncopied. Mr. 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 major revelations about the Clinton administration’s assessment and treatment of terrorists in the years before September 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. That 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 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, Mr. Berger, did at the National Archives, and he got off with a misdemeanor.

From this week’s Congressional Report it appears to me he stole and possibly destroyed documents and apparently corrupted Archives and Justice Department officials. Cultures of corruption tend to spread. When I read of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House, I wonder, do the Democrats want to go through this degraded debate all over again?

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun and an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute. His most recent book is “Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House.”

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide