The Sandy Berger story keeps rolling and continues to get weirder. Few additional details have emerged (yet) about his actions, but the responses are becoming positively Machiavellian.
Predictably, the Kerry campaign has blamed the disclosure on the Bush administration.
Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign accused the Bush White House on Wednesday of disclosing the existence of a criminal investigation against former national security adviser Sandy Berger for political advantage.The objective of such a leak, the Kerry campaign said in a political memo distributed by email, was to take attention away from a report to be issued on Thursday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The criminal investigation of Berger began last October but only came to light this week.
"The timing of this leak suggests that the White House is more concerned about protecting its political hide than hearing what the commission has to say about strengthening our security," the Kerry campaign said.
This quickly follows the jettisoning of Berger as an prominent advisor to the Kerry campaign, and is obviously intended to shift the focus from Berger's connections to Kerry and onto the White House. Pretty standard stuff and unlikely to impede the Kerry campaign's interest in seeing this story melt away.
However, today also saw Clinton apparatchik Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, dramatically raise the story's profile by filing a Freedom of Information Act request demanding any records of any discussion between the White House and the DoJ.
In light of the seriousness of the possibility that the Bush administration and the Department of Justice have politicized an ongoing investigation, it is imperative that this Freedom of Information request is responded to in an expedited manner.Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 and the regulations of the Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §16.3, I am requesting copies of the following:
Any and all communications relating or referring to the investigation of Samuel ("Sandy") Berger, between, correspondence (including electronic mail) between, memoranda between, phone records of communications between, meeting notes and/or minutes of meetings between, on the one hand, any official or employee of the US Department of Justice AND, on the other hand, (i) the Executive Office of the President or any unit or office thereof (including but not limited to the Office of the Vice President); (ii) any official, employee, or representative of the Republican National Committee; OR (iii) any official, employee or representative of the Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign.
This request covers all documents created during the period from and including October 1, 2003 through and including July 20, 2004.
The mind reels at why McAuliffe would want to fan this flame, until we read an article today by Dick Morris discussing in detail the war between the Clintons and the Kerry-Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party.
Just as the Democratic Party in the later 1960s was dominated by the schism between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, so the party in this decade is likely to be mired in a split between the Clintons on the one hand and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the other.The increasing tendency of the Kennedy-Kerry operatives to shut out the Clintons from the campaign highlights the Clinton conundrum: They desperately want Kerry to lose, but can't say so in public.
Bill Clinton's publication of his memoirs a few weeks before the Democratic convention was clearly a move to slow down Kerry's momentum. The book's timing forced Kerry to designate Edwards much earlier than is traditional, so as to stop the former president from hogging the spotlight. Kerry will probably pay for his premature selection in decreased viewership during his convention now that it is drained of any suspense.
The battle between Bill and Hillary in one corner and Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards in the other will become as bitter as the battle between Johnson and RFK. Cahill's bluntness in excluding Hillary from the speakers list — even though Kerry was forced to back off and let Hillary introduce Bill — is a signal that in this fight, no holds will be barred.
So, if this is already open warfare between the clans, maybe Terry McAuliffe's bizarre decision makes perfect sense: a way to damage Kerry at a critical moment, but all in the name of smearing the Bush administration.
Likewise, Clinton's own comments in defense of Sandy Berger hardly help his former advisor.
"We were all laughing about it on the way over here," Clinton said of the publicity. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe, but ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers."
This is a defense during a time of war? However, Berger did go over to the Kerry camp, so he may be no favorite in Clintonville.
Too clever? Could well be. But not beyond the pale with these ruthless competitors.
Meanwhile, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has decided to play hardball, as evidenced by today's announcement of a formal Congressional investigation.
“Like many Americans concerned about our national security, I look forward to learning more from the House Government Reform Committee’s investigation into the wayward actions by Sandy Berger. The American people deserve to know why Mr. Berger apparently skirted the law and removed highly classified terrorism documents, purportedly in his pants, from a secure reading room at the National Archives and then proceeded to lose or destroy some of them.“How could President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor be so cavalier?
“Was Mr. Berger trying to cover-up key facts regarding intelligence failures during his watch?
“What happened to those missing documents?
“Whose hands did they fall into?
“What kind of security risk does that pose to Americans today?
“I know Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) will work to get the full truth of what really happened and help all of us better understand why Sandy Berger, a person who should fully understand the gravity and importance of sensitive national security materials, would operate with such overt negligence and apparent disregard for the law.”
Tough language, and yet another knife fight in the alley. The next hundred days will see much worse.
Posted by Alan at July 21, 2004 05:42 PM