This morning's Examiner story on Sandy Berger's reported role as an advisor to Senator Hillary Clinton has generated quite a stir. The Clinton campaign refused comment to the Examiner but has subsequently claimed Berger has no formal role in the campaign. According to Senator Clinton herself, "He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role." Asked if he was an "unofficial advisor," Clinton said, "I have thousands of unofficial advisers," said Clinton, "and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign." "Like many people he offers advice, but he has no official role in the campaign," a campaign aide also told CNN.
The Clinton campaign's disavowal of any official role for Berger has led some to suggest that there was never anything to this story. The Examiner did not break this story in today's article, however, nor is it an invention of the "right-wing blogosphere." A month ago Newsweek reported that Berger is part of Senator Clinton's triumverate of key foreign policy advisors. (I blogged on the story here, which is why I was quoted in the Examiner story.) On Oct. 2, the Washington Post also listed Berger as one of three key Clinton foreign policy advisors (along with Richard Holbrooke and Brian Atwood). Other sources have made similar claims in the past month or so. Yet as far as I am aware, none of these reports prompted any disavowal of Berger's role, perhaps because none of those reports prompted much critical response.
I hope the latest reports that Berger has no "official" role in the Clinton campaign are accurate, and that Berger will not be a foreign policy player in any future Democratic Administration. A less equivocal disavowal would be nice, thought. I would think it would be relatively easy for Senator Clinton to disavow any Berger involvement, official or otherwise, in advising her or her campaign. As one of my colleagues e-mailed me about the story:
I am a Democrat and a Hillary supporter, but I find her decision to bring Berger on to be appalling. He is lucky not to have done jail time. And while there may be some second acts-- e.g. Elliot Abrams-- I would think that there should be a decent interval of shunning first.It is hard for me to believe that there are not similarly qualified individuals with equivalent foreign-policy views on the Democratic bench. What makes Berger unfit is his repeated and deliberate theft and destruction of materials from the National Archives, actions for which he has never had to fully account. While Berger initially sought to claim the thefts were a "mistake," he subsequently acknowledged that he had been "giving a benign explanation for what was not benign.”
UPDATE: I meant to add that it was odd the Examiner suggested I am a "Clinton admirer." Yes I find her to be an impressive politician, but I'm hardly her biggest fan.
SECOND UPDATE: Some Kossacks wonder "What the hell is she thinking?"
Related Posts (on one page):
- Is Sandy Berger Back?
- A Sandy Burglar Comeback?
As a matter of fact I would have grave doubts about any presidential candidate who refused to listen to someone's advice just because of past misbehavior. What Sandy Berger may have done with national security documents is no more reason to believe his policy suggestions are bad than we would have reason to discredit Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence if the Anita Hill allegations were proved. Demanding that Hillary not take advice from this character seems to be the height of form over substance.
Still, maybe I misunderstand your point. Maybe you agree that Hillary is justified in taking unofficial advice from Berger but shouldn't give him the public honor nor the potential access to sensitive information that would come along with an official post.
Also I think you overestimate the ease of finding good advisers. There may be plenty of people who are just as qualified out there but how do you know who they are? Even finding one you need to invest considerable time in developing a working relationship, learning where their judgment is suspect and so forth. What matters in an adviser is not their overall level of judgment or ethics but the advisee's knowledge of where and when it is appropriate to count on them.
Presumably if that happens we won't hear any excuses about how Libby is really a good guy who just made a mistake. Right?
I happen to believe that is true but I think the same thing is true of Berger as well. I think it is silly to assume that just because many of the other political operatives out there haven't actually committed these ethical lapses they wouldn't if they ran into the right temptations and it is future ethicality that really matters.
Until then, let's just bask in the familiar glow of business as usual for the Clintons.
Wait a minute...
It's really unfortunate--she is, in many ways, an admirable person. However, she is completely unqualified to hold high public office.
Maybe if a person cannot find good advisers he/she is not fit for the job of president?
The point is that there is only so much time in the day and that finding and learning enough to know how to use an advisor is a timeconsuming process. No one is going to be able to sit down with a whole new group of people a month from now and be able to make as good deciscions as they can with people they have known for much longer. Moreover, time finding and evaluating someone to take Bergers place is time that can't be spent finding other sorts of advisors.
Well, dang! It sure is a good thing Burger didn't get prison time -- as I would have if I had done what he admitted to doing, back when I held a clearance -- because then the new administration would be just paralyzed when Hillary's elected, wouldn't it?
I don't know why anyone would expect that Hillary would all of a sudden stand up and start acting honestly. I feel we'll be longing for the honest days of the Nixon administration soon.
My point in referencing Iran-Contra above is that all politicians are edge players in one way or another. They have to be. It just depends on whom or what you're working for.
Bush didn't mind convicted-but-pardoned players on his team for offenses against real people, arguably worse than indignities against historical records. Why the heat and light now?
I know, silly question.
Yeah, sure. He wasn't on official Clinton business when he undertook his search and destroy mission at the National Archives either.
Sandy Berger on the other hand committed several felonies involving documents of the highest secrecy and national importance in order to prevent the truth from being revealed to the 911 commission. His cover up was to prevent voters from knowing the truth about himself, Hillary, and Bill and their incompetent handling of the nation's national security.
The travesty of Berger's sweetheart plea deal that was handled by Orin Kerr's beloved DOJ career employees (more likely career neo-stalinist politicos of the DOJ who'd rather keep the country and the 911 commission from knowing the truth, by selling out their oaths of office, the country, and the constitution) is that it was designed to accomplish and did accomplish keeping the voters of this country from serious and substantial information about the character, truthfulness, and ethics of himself, Bill, and Hillary.
Berger hasn't even complied with all the terms of his plea deal, such as giving a lie detector test with regard to the truthfulness of his claims about what and what wasn't stolen by him and destroyed.
Of course the left wingers and neo stalinists in charge of the mainstream media care nothing for the 911 commission and the people of this country getting the truth on these matters. A truthful investigation by 911 commission is not something they really care about.
Says the "Dog"
Remind me again which group of people tried to stall the 911 commission, tried to prevent it from being formed, refused to hand over documents and still hasn't implemented all of its recommendations...
oh yeah...that's right...it was bush and his administration.
Um... I may disagree with Orin on substantive and theoretical issues at times, but I'm pretty unlikely to walk into his dinner party and say something like that. I think you owe one of your hosts an apology. He's nothing but polite, always. The least you could do is return the respect.
The group that hasn't implemented all the 911 commission is the democrats controlling congress. The 911 commission recommened numerous changes in congressional structure and NONE of them have been implemented by Congress. Certainly none of the meaningful ones. The democrats love to talk about and pass laws about what reforms the OTHER branches of government must do, but they care not a whit for implementing the changes recommended for their own branch of government.
Of course all of this is a mere deflection of the real issue which is Sandy Berger committed numerous felonies to steal and destroy national security documents rather than have the truth revealed about his, Bills, and Hillary's lack of attention to terrorist aggression and declarations of war against this country. The destruction of these papers also prohibited the truth coming out about the LIES Bill and Hillary were telling to the public and the 911 commission since 911. That's the real issue, along with the enablers for these crimes in the DOJ career neo stalinist OLC, etc.
Greedy Clerk,
I didn't call you a neo stalinist, but given your post I never would call you a neo stalinist. You I'd call a violent psychopathic neo stalinist. Now don't you have some packages to wrap or some other important clerking work to do there at the Gap before closing time?
Says the "Dog"
Says the "Dog"
The 9/11 report was given in 2004. the democrats didn't take power until 2006. that means republicans had 2 years to implement the recommendations, which they didn't do. see this report here given in 2005. There are a whole lot of Cs, Ds and Fs.
But i would like to see you explain one thing...if the republicans and the bush administration were absolutely 100% behind the 9/11 commission, why did they have to use subpoenas and the threat of subpoenas to get information?
Of course all of this is a mere deflection of the real issue
then why did you bring it up?
is the height of ettiquite.
Much like if one said,
Horowitz'es beloved academic friends (more likely neocon politicos)
Not quite the same thing, but I think it captures the comparison.
Yes its true the republicans when they controlled congress didn't implement the 911 changes. They didn't because congress critters of both parties are a lot better at telling OTHERS what to do than accepting changes for their own shortcomings. The democrats have had PLENTY of time to implement the changes since they have been in power and they only thing they have done is accuse the executive branch of not implementing changes. The democrats since they have controlled congress have run congress' approval rating further in the ground. They spend their time doing NOTHING, accomplishing NOTHING, and making speeches about radio talk show hosts and seeking to repeal the first amendment instead of doing something meaningful and important.
The 911 commission was opposed at its first suggestion because it was feared that the commission would be nothing but a political tool that would accomplish nothing but make happy a small vocal group of democrat New Jersey 911 widows. Those people were quite correct, btw. Some of whom were happy to meet with and entertain the monkey boy from Iran when he was here recently. Then Bergler's crimes helped make sure the 911 commission accomplished nothing by stealing and destroying documents vitally important to the commission and the country as a whole.
The 911 commission's recommendations have worked out great so far. A massive new and inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy called Homeland Security. New layers of european style bureaucracy in the intelligence community management. Great calls these were by the 911 commission.
Finally, again all of this is a mere deflection of the real issue of Sandy Berger's crimes. I didn't bring up 911 commission recommendations, so try rereading the posts above but this time for better comprehension.
The issue of this blog post is Sandy Berger, the crimes he committed, and how his crimes prevented the country, the voters, and the 911 commission from having vital information about the character and actions of Berger, Bill, and Hillary.
Says the "Dog"
Says the "Dog"
As for neo-stalinist apparatchaks in the DOJ, well I don't know about the neo-stalinist part, but there are at least a few that are willing to break the law and leak sensitive information for their own political agenda. No wonder some of them could see eye to eye with former official willing to destroy irreplacable documents from the National Archives in order to cover his tracks.
so you blame democrats for the failures of republicans. you blame democrats for not implementing policies that in all probability wouldn't work (shouldn't you be praising them for this?) you blame democrats for politicizing the 9/11 commission, which is something that was also done by republicans. you appear to blame democrats for things the republicans did (homeland security department was formed 2 days before the 911 commission was formed). you only accuse democrats of trying to obstruct the commission, which is something that was done to a greater extent by bush's whitehouse and the pentagon. In your imaginary world is there anything the democrats aren't responsible?
Pretty skimpy defense. This is the sort of defense that works for somebody getting a person to mow their lawn - not for a president getting a major policy advisor.
I suppose you'd have a better point if (1) Berger did not have such major baggage - his offense is not small, and (2) there were not so many other advisers available - many of which are surely qualified and willing. Those are pretty legitimate complaints against him, and nothing I've heard (including "Republicans do it to") have addressed those concerns.
Wait a minute..."
Berger wasn't implicated in anything. He's a thief and a convicted one at that. For stealing documents. Covering some serious ass and keeping the 911 Commission in the dark about what Billy knew and when he knew it. Concerning terrorists who killed Americans. Remember them? Bin Laden? Taliban? Afghanistan? The people we are actually "at war" with?
But other than that, comparing what Berger was convicted of to what others are "implicated" in seems like a righteous comparison. Particularly on a blog populated by so many lawyers.
Huh, this doesn't make any sense. I don't care if he murdered someone. If his advice is good take it!
Is the claim that somehow Hillary is more likely to make bad choices if she talks to Berger and hears his ideas? If not what could possibly be the reason not to accept his advice.
I want a president who puts the welfare of the country first. Period. If better ideas come from serial killers, child rapists or whoever I don't care.
The problem with all the arguments presented here is that they assume it is morally dubious to get policy ideas from morally dubious people. I claim just the opposite. It is morally dubious to refuse policy ideas for any reason other than reason to believe they won't be good ones. If so it doesn't matter how small the cost is of replacing Berger with someone else is its still a cost and the country shouldn't be paying it.
I have two comments to make about your post, but before I do, I'd like to second DG's statement that the disgust that many of us (I was a Top Secret documents custodian) feel for Berger and his actions are not because of his politics, but rather for his decision to put the "legacy" of his patron ahead of the safety of the nation and his clearly lenient treatment by NARA and DOJ/FBI.
1. WRT to the sound advice that Hillary would be missing by giving Sandy the boot, isn't that a dubious claim, in that Berger's crime was covering up his previous bad advice or lack of advice under Bill?
2. Maybe not yet, but when Hillary gets the nomination, she will start getting "National Security" Briefings from the NSC and CIA at the Top Secret / SCI level. (same stuff he stole) How can her "foreign policy" adviser function without access to that information, and if she shares it, she is guilty of several crimes and he violates parole
I'm not a Berger or a Clinton fan for a vareity of reasons, and agree with this as a bad choice of FPA. But this seems like ignoring a murderer and instead going after a petty theif.
Of course, this has all been said before. It's now just self-indulgence, an attempt to justify a Giuliani election. Wonder what the defense will be amongst the intellectual class when the Iran War goes horribly, horribly wrong?
Anyone who thinks luck entered into Berger's plea deal is terribly naive--the fix was in. The judge in the case clearly smelled a rat, as both her comments and actions at sentencing indicated. It's interesting in this regard to reflect that the DoJ Espionage Section that handled the Berger case also initiated the Libby investigation--when they knew that Armitage was Novak's source. Disparate treatment for Clintonistas as opposed to Neo Cons by career DoJ attorneys? Imagine that!
don't forget the FBI. Berger told different stories along the way. Usually the FBI is infuriated by that and insists on tacking on that "false statements to federal agents" felony that on its face is worth another 5 years.
this time they didn't seem to notice.
don't forget the FBI. Berger told different stories along the way. Usually the FBI is infuriated by that and insists on tacking on that "false statements to federal agents" felony that on its face is worth another 5 years.
this time they didn't seem to notice.
The FPI also has to deal with the POTUS -- and the next one would be SERIOUSLY PISSED if her bagman was doing jail time.
Dog and Brian--This is VC. If you can't play nicely, I'm going to have to send you out to the hallway.
And for the record--When the story about Berger broke, Bill Clinton's response was along the lines of "Haw-haw! Sandy's so disorganized, I can imagine him losing classified docs by accident. Haw-haw!" So can't we stipulate that he should not have access to classified information in any new job?
Perhaps Hillary can send him to the UN. It's a prestige post, but one that the right doesn't much care about. So it rewards him for advice and loyal service, without making him custodian of a lot of information that we wouldn't want to have left on a seat in the Metro.
How did ever get there (Clinton Administration) in the first instance, given his representation of the Chinese government in its repression mode?
Very true, BladeDoc.
R. Richard Schweitzer, a very good question, indeed.
Possibly Berger got his position precisely because Berger has excellent contacts with the Chinese government (as you note) and Chinese money seems to be very important to the Clintons. We had the 1996 campaign finance investigation and now we have Norman Hsu. Who's to say we know all? Could it be that where there's smoke there really is fire?
I'm afraid I must express surprise and disagreement at your lumping me in with Brian K. I have made no personal attacks or deragatory comments about any specific person and certainly not Brian K. I didn't call greedyclerk a neo-stalinist either. Even greedyclerk knows that I didn't say he was a neo-stalinist as documented by his message of threats of violence began "If you called me a neo-stalinist.....".
It always bugs me when a liberal goes whacko with personal attacks or threats of violence or more and then somebody comes along and lumps the conservative in with the whacko neo-stalinist behavior.
Says the "Dog"
Neostalinist, neostalinist, neostalinist, LOL!!
*ahem* We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
I'm surprised that your playing all innocent. this isn't the first time we've argued. before you say something obviously false, you might want to make sure i've stopped reading the board.
But that is kind of moot anyway, there is no way Berger is going into any slot that requires Senate confirmation.
If it were easy to determine precisely which ideas are good and which are bad, this would be a no-brainer. But, when foreign policy positions do not easily resolve themselves in "good" or "bad" categories, we have to look a little at the background of who is making the idea. I don't think there can be disagreement that taking top secret documents is anything but a bad decision, and further than that it seems reflective of putting something other than the welfare of the country as a priority. Thus, selecting Mr. Berger as an advisor is a poor choice.
Finally, the essense of your posts suggests that Mr. Berger is the only person who can provide this good advice, or if there are others, they are too hard to find. Neither is true.
I don't know enough to say anything about how good a guy Berger is or whether he is slimy but that's not the big issue here. As an aside the example with libby still seems relevant since he clearly put the interests of his political patron over that of the country (whether or not the underlying act was illegal). In fact the two situations are virtually identical, both acted ilegally to deny the public with information and their administrations that they were legally entitled to have. I guess I'm just inclined to be fairly lenient in all these situations but my point was just that I would be very surprised to see the people protesting so loudy here to be protesting equally loudly if libby became someone's unofficial adviser.
It just seems to me their is a very real danger in situations like this of falling victim to the tendency to view your opponents as not merely mistaken but as bad people. In other words people are likely to see misdeeds by the other party in the worst light possible. I mean c'mon people you can't have failed to notice that liberals all think republicans are a bunch of immoral liars and vice versa. Therefore I think one ought to be at least aware that you could have this bias as well in a case like this.
As far as your other two points I already agreed in my earlier posts that this would be a valid reason to be upset if it was discovered that Hillary was trusting him with truly sensitive material or even honoring him with an official post as an adviser. However, unofficially asking him what he thinks should be done seems like a totally different matter.
I mean suppose that tomorrow Hsu published a brillant plan to get out of Iraq in the newspaper. Should either party refuse to consider it because he is now known to be a con man? Obviously not. I don't see how it changes when the candidate gives him an unofficial phone call and says, "do you have any brilliant plans."
Nope. That's not waht I have said. What I have said has nothing to do with Berger's morality. It is purely a matter of his competence. His former boss--Bill Clinton--says that he was not surprised by the allegations against Berger, since he was such an inveterate slob and is not capable of keeping track of documents. I have no idea about him as a person.
Although he is a Jew, and thus must be suspected of harboring divided loyalties. (Yes, I'm kidding.)
Why is it unfair to say the he ought not to be elligible for a job that gives him access to classified docs?
Not playing innocent. I AM innocent. My posts in this thread are here for all to see as are yours. Regarding tangling before. I'm afraid I don't remember that, nor do I remember you. Sorry.
Says the "Dog"