Sandy Berger, who was President Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor and who deliberately stole and destroyed classified documents from the National Archives, will be legally able to regain security clearance next year. Previously posted here:

Berger, under the terms of the plea deal he agreed to, will regain the ability to be given access to classified material on April 1st of 2008. That is, in plenty of time to be assigned a top position in any potential administration of President Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat. Who’s the April Fool in this scenario? The current cover of Time magazine might be enlightening.

The cover of Time magazine which I was referring to was a mirror. (”Person of the Year” was you.)

Today the rehabilitation of Sandy Berger is proceeding apace. From Richard Miniter (thanks to Rich for the tip) here’s a recap of Berger’s past and a foretelling of his future:

My informed sources suggest that what Berger destroyed were copies of the Millennium After-Action Review, a binder-sized report prepared by Richard Clarke in 2000 — a year and half before the 9-11 attacks. The review made a series of recommendations for a tougher stance against bin Laden and terrorism. There are 13 or more copies of this report. But only one contains hand-written notes by President Bill Clinton. Apparently, in the margin beside the recommendations, Bill Clinton wrote NO, NO, NO next to many of the tougher policy proposals.

You can see why Clinton might be happy to see these records vanish down the memory hole.

So Berger was stuffing in pants and socks and later shredding the evidence that President Clinton did not want to take a tougher line on bin Laden, following the 1998 attack on two U.S. embassies that killed 224 people (including 12 American diplomats).

Now for the Hillary connection …

So what does the Democratic front-runner and former First Lady do?

She makes Berger one of her top three foreign policy advisers.

More from Jonathan Adler:

Why do I find the report that Hillary Clinton is using Sandy Berger as one of her key foreign policy advisors so unnerving? Because it shows both poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s legal and ethical breaches. I also find it quite surprising. Hillary Clinton has impressed me as a Senator and as a candidate. Whatever her other faults, she is intelligent, savvy, disciplined, and determined; by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field. All this makes her apparent inclusion of Berger in her foreign policy “triumverate” all the more difficult to fathom.

Well, I don’t think it’s particularly difficult to fathom. Berger’s actions in the National Archives were not selfless. He understood that he would be taken care of, and he is being taken care of. There is no other reasonable explanation as to why Hillary would take the political risk of naming Berger as an advisor now. (She’s not selfless either.)

It is customary that when a president puts together his (or her) first cabinet, that they draw from those who advised them in particular areas during their campaign. Sandy Berger is on the road back to the White House, or the State Department. Or maybe Defense. How about the CIA?

The thing that is unfathomable is how the Clintons continue to get away with such mind-boggling brazenness. It’s a funny old world.

…

Addendum: And then there is all this stuff:

Clinton may still get funds from donors tied to Hsu (from the Houston Chronicle)

Hsu letter appeared to be suicide note (from the LA Times)

Does anyone want four or eight more years of this kind of thing, in a Hillary Clinton presidency? Do most Democrats, even?

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• National security: Clinton style
• Berger
• Rally against Iranian President Ahmadinejad