Here's the link from Truthout, featuring the entire article by Scott Paltrow, with the embedded link to the WSJ, which requires a subscription:
Berger Cleared of Withholding information
QUOTE
Officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the National Archives by former Clinton National Security Adviser Samuel Berger say no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record.
The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.
Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there \"are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case.\" She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.
That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.
Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. \"We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw,\" and \"nothing was missing,\" he said.
Then there's this piece from the Albany Democrat-Herald.Several prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have voiced suspicion that when Mr. Berger was preparing materials for the 9/11 Commission on the Clinton administration's antiterror actions, he may have removed documents that were potentially damaging to the former president's record.
The conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.
Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said officials there \"are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case.\" She said in most cases, Mr. Berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.
That included all drafts of a so-called after-action report prepared by the White House and federal agencies in 2000 after the investigation into a foiled bombing plot aimed at the Millennium celebrations. That report and earlier drafts are at the center of allegations that Mr. Berger might have permanently removed some records from the archives. Some of the allegations have related to the possibility that drafts with handwritten notes on them may have disappeared, but Ms. Cooper said archives staff are confident those documents aren't missing either.
Daniel Marcus, general counsel of the 9/11 Commission, said the panel had been assured twice by the Justice Department that no originals were missing and that all of the material Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission. \"We are told that the Justice Department is satisfied that we've seen everything that the archives saw,\" and \"nothing was missing,\" he said.
Berger flap was overplayed
QUOTE
On Friday the Journal reported that officials looking into this admittedly unauthorized removal of classified material had reported that \"no original materials are missing and nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission ...\"
This conclusion, according to the Journal, apparently lays to rest any question of whether material was withheld from the commission or destroyed - which had been inferred as the dark motive for Berger to take the material with him.
The story was emphatic that \"no originals were missing and that all the material that Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission.\"
So, if all the stuff that Berger reviewed is accounted for, and if nothing is missing, what's so important about him having taken some of it with him in the first place? It still sounds like a breach of the law on handling classified records. But it does not sound like some underhanded scheme to thwart the 9/11 commission, or to hide something, or to shift blame to the Bush people. It was, as Berger has said himself on TV, just a dumb thing to do.
The story was on the front page of our paper when it broke. It evidently didn't merit that kind of play. It was not important. And if it was interesting, it was interesting only as an example of how politics sometimes works to distort harmless events. (hh)
So was this all just a political ploy to deflect attention from and damage Kerry? Why was it leaked when it was? Will we be getting more such overplayed stories any time the W's support starts faltering until November?
This conclusion, according to the Journal, apparently lays to rest any question of whether material was withheld from the commission or destroyed - which had been inferred as the dark motive for Berger to take the material with him.
The story was emphatic that \"no originals were missing and that all the material that Mr. Berger had access to had been turned over to the commission.\"
So, if all the stuff that Berger reviewed is accounted for, and if nothing is missing, what's so important about him having taken some of it with him in the first place? It still sounds like a breach of the law on handling classified records. But it does not sound like some underhanded scheme to thwart the 9/11 commission, or to hide something, or to shift blame to the Bush people. It was, as Berger has said himself on TV, just a dumb thing to do.
The story was on the front page of our paper when it broke. It evidently didn't merit that kind of play. It was not important. And if it was interesting, it was interesting only as an example of how politics sometimes works to distort harmless events. (hh)
