Thursday, March 31, 2005

I'll have a Berger with a side of felony

WASHINGTON — Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said today.

Berger is expected to appear in federal court in Washington tomorrow, said Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra.

The former Clinton administration official previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents. He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

He called the episode "an honest mistake," and denied criminal wrongdoing.
Berger and his lawyer, Lanny Breuer, have said Berger knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket and pants and inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. He returned most of the documents, but some still are missing.

The charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.

The materials related to a 2000 report on how government reacted to the terror threat prior to the millennium celebrations.

Something fishy is still up with this. Your humble Chief has been in situations where he has had to handle sensitive items and I have never had to stuff classified documents in my socks! This isn't a field operation where sometimes people get sloppy and cut corners in order to get things done, it was a former senior official at a government archive. It was not a mistake, he knew what he was doing. Most likely he is plea bargaining to avoid having to explain in public why he stole those documents, and for whom.

And here I didn't even know Hillary ran guns for the Khmer Rouge

From the New York Times:

Clinton Supporters Gear Up Against 'Swift Boat' Tactics

WASHINGTON, March 31 - With 19 months to go before the elections and no opponent in sight, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is nonetheless warning her political supporters that she is the prime target of "the right-wing attack machine."
In a fund-raising e-mail message sent out on Thursday, Mrs. Clinton's campaign also said her critics were preparing an advertising campaign against her similar to the one orchestrated by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that attacked Senator John Kerry's Vietnam service during the presidential election.

"The right wing is already getting ready, naming Hillary as their 'No. 1 target' and boasting about their 'Swift Boat' style ads," said the e-mail message, which was sent by Ann F. Lewis, the director of communications for Mrs. Clinton's campaign committee, Friends of Hillary. "Help us show the right wing that we will be ready and able to fight back."

Now is it just me, or does it seem a little ridiculous to act like the SBVFT organization was some type of elite hit squad, some type of political tactic unheard of in the history of politics? John Kerry based his campaign on his Vietnam service, with his tacky saluting and "I served in Vietnam" speeches every 5 minutes, and then suddenly when it became a liability he started whining about it. Bush was attacked constantly on his Air National Guard service, but guess what, it wasn't the basis of his campaign. Nobody cared except for the people who were never voting for him in the first place. So if Hillary wants to beat "swiftboat like tactics" then why doesn't she run on something meaningful? Oh, and explaining how she made all that money on those cattle futures might help too.

Putting the Smackdown on Liberal Lying Profs

Hey, WWU professors should not attempt to argue economics with future UW MBA candidates on the prowl. Floyd McKay, a frequent guest columnist for the Seattle Times published a rather ridiculous and fact impaired editorial yesterday to which I quickly sent off an e-mail (he never should have listed his Yahoo account). His reply was the typical expected, I am right, and even if I am not, it doesn't make a difference because my intentions are correct. Last year I previously e-mailed him on a error he made on the Bush Air National Guard issue with a similar response. Both him and the Times refused to issue a correction, but this time the Times has said they will run my letter to the editor in tomorrow's edition. Yeah, I am almost famous.

For the time being the folks at were nice enough to publish my letter. It is a great local blog, I highly recommend it. So this is my little accomplishment for accountability in the media. Power to the people!