Berger(ler) (Update)

No, I’m not entering the Bennett song contest, but if I was . . .

Hush little Sandy, we’ll do what we can
Never mind that clearance ban
It just two years till two-oh-eight
Till we recast this reprobate

(Apologies to Metallica)

For the most part DC and the people who operate in it are what they are: agenda driven but mostly benign. Radical shifts in either direction don’t last long because the majority has too much to lose if the status quo is disturbed.

Still, you cannot assume that anything done in this town isn’t planned and executed with at least a modicum of consideration for how much political gain it will get the people behind it. I have issues with people who sit on both sides of the political spectrum, and some of the decisions made by the man at the top, but I have yet to join the chorus of people who sing about the lack of seriousness about national security matters by those whose compasses bear westward.

After reading the report about Sandy Berger’s actions I might be asking for a try-out.

I know you can read so I won’t repeat the findings in-depth here, suffice it to say that the idea that clumsy, rumpled and forgetful Sandy made an honest mistake is about as valid as three-dollar bill. This was a deliberate, concerted (and successful) effort to alter the history surrounding the greatest terrorist attack on US soil.

I don’t agree with everyone who operates in the national security arena, and I’m sure that’s a coin that has two sides. However, there is always a level of respect I afford people with superior knowledge and experience regardless of their opinions or (normal) actions. In the case of Berger, I cannot imagine anyone who is serious about these issues trying to restore him to a position of respectability or responsibility (even though it will be tried).

There, I said it, if you’re down with his crowd, you’re not serious.

Update: A much better treatment than my woeful attempt.

2 comments for “Berger(ler) (Update)

  1. January 11, 2007 at 3:35 PM

    Taking Clarke, et al. at their word, they should have nothing to hide. The full record would indicate that they were trying to put the full court press on AQ and the new admin balked.
    Either a full purge or trim job by Berger well after the fact suggests the opposite: that they knew full well the extent of the threat posed by AQ, but a) wiffed or b) realized they forgot to wipe their fingerprints off the baton before the hand-off (so to speak).
    Any more sports metaphors I can milk here?
    I don’t know how things work at that level, but a little farther down the food chain there is the records policy and real life. I know precious few people who actually inventory, box up, and ship off their old files for storage. Email and similar comms are a different story because control is in the hands of the IT dept., but paper . . . who knows how much confetti anyone at that level generates before they leave. . .

  2. January 10, 2007 at 10:34 PM

    My guess is berger was tying up loose ends, not starting a project to selectively trim the record.
    I’m wondering how Berger handled critical documents shortly before leaving office, just before he was required to turn them over to the National Archives.
    How much background NSC paper, email and meeting notes regarding the drafting of PDD went down the memory hole?

Leave a Reply