The Washington Times focuses today's editorial on the curious arrangement that our Democratic presidential front runner, Hillary Clinton, has with Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser to President Bill Clinton.
If Sen. Hillary Clinton is to chart her own course independent of her husband, why did she choose Sandy Berger to give her advice on foreign policy? This suggests reunion time for cronies. In 2003, Mr. Berger took several highly classified documents about the Clinton-era Millennium terror plot from the National Archives while "aiding" the September 11 commission. Mr. Berger successfully negotiated a plea bargain and received only two years probation, along with a security-clearance suspension and a $50,000 fine. Were he anything less than a member of the permanent Clinton establishment, he would be in sitting in a prison cell, with few prospects.
I'm quite certain that Mr. Berger will disappear from Mrs. Clinton's campaign. The trial balloon has been released, and after a short period in which it stayed below the radar, it has risen into full view. People are beginning to ask questions. The Clinton camp will announce that Mr. Berger is not really involved in the campaign.
It's interesting to recall what happened when the public became aware that Sandy Berger had been caught red-handed stealing and destroying documents from the National Archive. He stole them while preparing for testimony before the 9/11 commission, but the Democrats accused the Bush administration of foul play.
Many Democrats, including former President Clinton, suggested politics were behind disclosure of the probe only days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission report, which Republicans feared would be a blow to President Bush's re-election campaign.
The Times editorial concludes by saying that Mrs. Clinton can't escape responsibility for disregarding the seriousness of Mr. Berger's crime. I'd be willing to bet she thinks she can, and if the mainstream press has anything to say about it, she will. Silence will reign supreme.
Wouldn't it be refreshing, though, if there were a few people who would not allow that to happen, regardless of whether Mr. Berger stays on to serve Mrs. Clinton, or not. Having reopened this can of worms by associating Berger with her campaign, Mrs. Clinton should now be asked the question, "What was in those documents that Sandy Berger lifted from the National Archives?" Inquiring minds would like to hear her answer, and the question should be put to her until she gives us one.
Comments