From The Right

Et Alia: Article Archive
Ideology Test
Primary Calendar
Usually Correct, Always Right

Sandy Berger: Docs In Socks
Authored July 22, 2004

Sandy Berger From the front page of the USA Today and page 12 of the New York Times (who still thinks that the Times is not extremely biased?) we have the reporting of Kerry campaign advisor, Sandy Berger, stealing documents from the National Archives. Initially this only sounds like bad practice until we start analyzing the impact of his actions. Then we see a few things about John Kerry, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton and the Democrat party.

Sandy Berger
Sandy Berger was the National Security Advisor for Bill Clinton. He was until yesterday a top advisor for John Kerry's campaign. The position in the Clinton's administration requires a very high level of security clearance comes with some serious responsibilities. For example servicemen working on nuclear missiles have a higher level of security clearance which they lose temporarily simply for taking certain medications. The medical records are stamped so that doctors know to report all medications to the service member's supervisors so the security clearance can be revoked.

The fact is that the higher the clearance the more precautions and restrictions there are. People are reminded constantly (we in the service had to take classes each month to maintain our clearance) of these restrictions and I do not have any doubt that Mr. Berger was fully aware of the restrictions that he faced while in the National Archives.

To say that he was "sloppy" is nothing more than a cover story. How is someone so sloppy in handling paperwork that they shove some into their socks and pockets? To the truly objective observer it is obvious that his actions were intentional. So why the cover story? Because the Clinton Administration has operated under the "easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" mantra (which they then turn to the alter the facts and deny the charge process) and they obviously continue to do so.

Now it is time for some predictions. By election time Mr. Berger will deny stealing the documents. If Kerry manages to win the election look for Mr. Berger to be appointed to a high level position regardless of the outcome of Berger's federal felony charges. If these occur then do not doubt for a minute that Kerry will cheat to get Berger's security clearance passed.

Why is this so important? Because important documents are stored in the National Archives and the precedent cannot be set that it is acceptable to play Berger's Docs In Socks game. Let us suppose that the docs Berger "lost" described failed intelligence decisions or explanations of why Osama bin Laden was not taken in on several occasions. This would help the 9/11 Commission to determine some other items in buffering the U.S. intelligence reporting procedures. This opportunity to improve the nation's safety was destroyed, I mean, they were "lost".

Security Impact and Other Damage
Sandy Berger's actions have some very serious implications for the National Security of the United States. The reason Berger was in the National Archives to begin with was for testimony before the 9/11 Commission. The Commission's task was to analyze all of the facts and details surrounding the security failings, intelligence gaps and process deficiencies. Berger's actions were obviously not intended to bring the various 90+-page reports to the Commission (lest the "accidental discarding" of the documents). The Commission was thus left with incomplete analysis because many of the documents relating to the Millennium terrorist plots cannot be included.

Since the Commission is now unable to fully analyze the failures of addressing terrorism prior to 2000 we as a nation will never be able to "plug the holes" that existed then. Our borders and our security are left diminished as a result of Sandy Berger's actions.

And Bill Clinton simply laughed when he was told.

The other impact of these events (yes, Berger played Docs-In-The-Socks on at least two accidental occasions) is that future high-ranking officials will be more likely to do the same in order to protect future administrations. This theft of important documents will lead to a further diminishment of national security and preparedness. If Berger can get away with stealing and destroying documents that are Code Word Clearance (which is higher than even our nuclear missile codes) then what prevents any future National Security Advisor from doing the same to protect his own reputation or that of any future president?

The fact is that Berger admitted to these actions. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with the maximum penalties imposed. His prison time should be hard time and his clearance should be permanently revoked. Fines should be levied for the costs associated with investigating his actions as well as to cover the costs of adding more surveillance. Berger should have actual ramifications that make him pay in any way possible for two reasons. The first is to punish him for the damage to the national security. The second reason is to deter anyone from doing so as wantonly or willingly in the future.

What Kerry Didn't Know Should Hurt Him
Sandy Berger stepped down as John Kerry's campaign advisor as soon as the story broke, and not a minute before. Since Clinton and his cronies were admitting that they were laughing about Berger's theft long ago it seems that the only power broker in the DNC that did not know was John Kerry. How convenient for him.

Kerry saying that he did not know anything about Docs In Socks means one of three things. Either Kerry was kept out of the loop, Kerry is terribly uninformed on the inner machinations of his own campaign, or Kerry knew about it and is saying otherwise.

If Kerry was kept out of the loop then perhaps Kerry's management style is not exactly what this country needs. As it is the left has spent more than 15 years spitting on the legacy of Reagan because of Reagan's delegating style. That style led his subordinates partaking in Iran-Contra while leaving Reagan out of the loop on the specifics of "getting the hostages home." If such a style is so bad then Kerry is not good.

If Kerry was perhaps partially informed then we have two possible problems. Either Kerry has an inability to ask questions to get more information or his staff has a problem giving Kerry the "whole picture". Either way this leads to an ineffective leader. The leader needs a staff that he can trust to give to him the whole story and the leader needs to be responsible for asking probing questions. This does not seem to be the case.

The final option under the Kerry denials is that he knew Berger stole the documents and is simply lying about it. This is a relatively small issue that could have been cleared up as soon as Kerry found out. The proper and honorable thing to do would have been to ask Berger to step down upon discovery. In fact, the entire Democratic Party should be assisting with investigating and punishing Sandy Berger (but I guarantee they will not because the law to Democrats is secondary to political victories).

What We See About The Left
This does not apply to all members of the left but it does apply to most. The left sees little wrong, if anything, with Sandy Berger did. For some it is simply ignorance from the real life ramifications to national security. For a few it is a matter of being unable to protract the allowance of such behavior to a real life scenario over the next 5-10 years. For most of them it is the same thing as with Clinton. The Democrat National Party is more important than the law. If the DNC member is important enough then most of the people on the left feel that the law does not apply to that person.

Certainly they will not say it when asked point blank. But they do feel it. Take for example the rallying around Clinton after it was proven beyond any doubt that he perjured himself in a federal court. This is a federal felony to the average person. To the typical Democrat it was something to be obfuscated, denied and recalled through revisionist lenses. I know people who still do not listen to the fact that Clinton perjured himself.

In that case the law was secondary to maintaining power.

When the cards were starting to stack against Gary Condit (D-CA) the Democrats still rallied around their man. For quite some time the investigations were called "witchhunts" by Condit and his fellow Democrats.

In that case, until they lost public opinion support, the law was secondary to maintaining power.

As of this day Trent Lott is still considered a racist for a comment at a private party while the Democrat Senator, former KKK member, Robert Byrd has not been reprimanded for using the "n-word" on national television a couple of years ago.

This Sandy Berger incident just shows us again that those who support values, right over wrong, a nation of laws and moral judgment do not have a home in the Democrat Party. They could have shown otherwise by leading the outrage against criminal behavior in the Doc In Socks incident, but that road was above them.

Republicans were outraged at the Abu Gharib prison scandals. Republicans helped with the investigation in Watergate. Republicans offered not shelter from the law to Rep. Janklow (R-SD).

This coming election is not about positions on policy (granted Kerry takes both sides of all issues) and it is not totally about the war. This election, up and down the ticket, is about values. What candidate and what party overwhelmingly supports the values that we hold dear? Which party upholds the idea of accountability, law above the man, traditional family values and an enforcement of right over wrong.

It is certainly not the party of Sandy Berger.

Our Campaigns

11/24/03 article quoting Anthony

Front page article featuring Anthony on 10/15/03

3/13/03 article quoting Anthony

2/21/02 article quoting Anthony

2/11/02 article featuring Anthony