Sandy Berger has been the National Security Advisor for the White House so he definitely should know better -- and he did. During Clinton's first term, he served as Deputy Assistant to the President in National Security Affairs. This guy knows his way around the block in Washington. Blindfolded.
So will you please tell me why this Doctor of Jurisprudence from Harvard Law accidentally walked out of the National Archives with top secret documents AFTER intentionally mis-directing the guards and hiding said papers in his pants (!), shoes and jacket?
Fox news reported "Some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration's handling of Al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millenium celebration are still missing, officials and lawyers said. Officials said the missing documents also identified America's terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports."
How do they know what's missing? They don't: Look at the facts.
1. After Berger's first visit to the Archives, staff felt it necessary to mark the pages they allowed him to see because they noticed him hiding papers in his pants. He seems to have gotten away with some papers before they began to check on him.
2. He admits he "inadvertently" took at least 50 pages, some of which were his own notes, but all of which were supposed to have approved for removal by Archives staff.
The New York Sun wrote "It really doesn't matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission's report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly."
But the real point here isn't what embarrasses Berger, it's what was in the documents that he didn't return. He had access to any Archives documents he wanted. He obviously knew what he wanted, where it was, and how to hide any evidence of his theft.
There's no group in America more experienced in destroying and hiding evidence of wrongdoing than the Clinton Democrats. They have proved that again and again from WhiteWater to the White House.
The question isn't whether Berger's theft was due to negligence as Colbert King asked in the Washington Post, July 2004. The question is what were the documents and why was he willing to risk his reputation to get them and destroy them?
And another question is why isn't the media asking that question?