Frying Berger

Well, the rightists are having a field day with Sandy Berger's misadventure at the National Archive. Bush has said that the matter is serious and requires immediate investigation -- unlike, say, such paltry concerns as 9/11, the investigation of which he tried to block.

The right-tilting bloggers and newsgroup shouters are doing their best to insinuate -- or state -- that Berger hoped to hide some incriminating fact about Clinton-era terror policy. That presumption falls apart when we note the following:

1. According to the reports I've read, the documents in question existed in multiple copies. Berger could not hope to eradicate the information, any more than you could hope to eradicate fascism by stealing your local library's copy of Mein Kampf.

2. Apparently, the major focus is on a specific document written by Richard Clarke, at Berger's instruction, during the Clinton administration. Nobody should be under the impression that this one file contains the secrets of the Qabala. As Berger's lawyer, Lanny Breuer, explained: "Now with respect to what this document is about, it is widely known. Its existence is widely known. It's written about in books and in magazines."

3. Perhaps the main accusation against Berger is that he made notes of classified documents. That's a serious matter, of course. Still, notes leave the original document intact. Which brings us back to the question: How could Berger hope to hide material from the record?

4. The National Archive has methods in place to keep track of its holdings; that institution knows when a piece of paper has gone missing and who saw it last. Berger surely knew this fact.

Although much remains up in the air, here's my guess as to what really happened. Berger's lawyer says that his client wanted to double-check all his facts before testifying to the 9/11 commission. Beyond that, I would not be surprised if Berger harbored hopes of writing a book or article discussing Clinton's terrorism policy. Anyone who has ever worked with archival material (as I have, though not with classified documents) has entertained the thought: "If only I could bring a box of this stuff home, peruse it at my leisure, then return it..." Berger, I am betting, gave into that temptation.

Yes, doing so constitutes a breach. But it does not constitute any sort of cover-up.

Incidentally, the Drudge-spread canard about Berger stuffing paper into his socks proves that the GOPropagandists still cannot resist the temptation to embellish. Remember all the wild, hyperbolic accusations that went flying around in the early days of Whitewater? History repeats itself. There is less to the Berger affair than met the eye at first.