This makes no damned sense whatsoever:
Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”
There is no way to account for this lack of judgment other than sheer arrogance. There is a reason why, over the past six years, when I have been trying to caution Republicans not to expand certain executive powers I have asked them to think how they would feel about President Hillary Clinton with that authority. In my opinion, Hillary will openly embrace the Bush policy of “Doing Whatever the Fuck I Want.” This is just more confirmation of my perception.
*** Update ***
According to this, Berger has no role in Hillary’s campaign:
At the end of an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a short while ago, USA TODAY’s Susan Page inquired about reports that former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger is advising her.
Susan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?
“He has no official role in my campaign. He’s been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn’t have any official role,” Clinton said.
But he’s an unofficial adviser, Susan asked?
“I have thousands of unofficial advisers,” said Clinton, “and, you know, I appreciate all of that. But he has no official role in my campaign.”
A few points:
1.) Apparently, refusing to disavow an old friend means that Hillary is using Berger as an advisor. That is unfair and a load of shit. If anything, standing by her friend raises my opinion of her.
2.) It is still, apparently, incredibly easy for the right-wing blabosphere to regurgitate and circulate any bullshit they find, and with a great deal of speed. Within hours a reporter is asking about rumors spread. Pretty efficient and effective in the hands of people with no scruples.
3.) I am still a gullible sap, and as honed as I think my bullshit detectors are, still can not figure out to instinctively not trust a damned thing the usual suspects are linking to feverishly.
4.) I still have a deep-seated distrust of Hillary and will unload on her at a moments notice. Whether or not that is fair is a topic for a different discussion, but the distrust is still there, and I need to learn to be more cautious when it comes to news of Hillary.
*** Update #2 ***
Clinton campaign downplays Berger’s role
Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign downplayed a report in the Washington Examiner Monday that former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is advising the New York Democrat’s White House bid.
“Like many people he offers advice, but he has no official role in the campaign,” a Clinton aide told CNN’s Candy Crowley.
*** Update #2 ***
From the comments, Jonathon Adler:
I agree with washerdreyer that it was odd for the Examiner to characterize me as a Clinton admirer just because I said I found her to be the most impressive Democratic candidate. That said, I do not think this was an over-hyped or false story. As I note here, today’s Examiner story was not the first report that Berger has been one of those most relied upon by Senator Clinton for foreign policy advice.
JHA
Yes. Clinton downplayed his role by pointing out he has no role whatsoever.
Bombadil
In addition to profound arrogance, it also smacks of handing your enemy a loaded gun and saying, “Here, try mine”.
Zifnab
At this point, she’s practically thumbing her noes at the entire electoral process. Nothing says, “I’m going to be President and there’s not a damn thing you can do to stop me, Republicans!” like openly embracing Sandy Berger.
If she can make Edward Kennedy her VP, nominate Murtha to the Defense Department, take Jane Fonda on as her Secretary of State, and somehow resurrect Gerry Studds I fear she may hone GOP outrage into such a razor edge that it will literally pierce the fabric of reality and bring about the end of the universe as we know it.
Chris Peterson
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb. Hillary will deserve all those Corner posts writing themselves as I type. Sad…
capelza
Bill Sammon wrote that article.
Clinton’s people have cleared it up.
ninerdave
Link?
capelza
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300005,00.html
I have to laugh at people like Hoekstra whi have defended Libby, who was convicted of felonies and then pardoned by his boss going apeshit about Berger who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for takiong copies of documents, NOT stuffed down his pants or in his socks.
Not a big Clinton fan, but the people who take THIS article at face value astound me..and I mean Democrats.
scarshapedstar
Wingnutosphere : Truth :: Mrs. Dash : Salt
Mr Furious
Nice catch Capelza and nice recovery John. I’m not a Clinton fan either, and was ready to believe it, and move on to pot/kettle aspersions.
Now I dont have to.;
Incertus (Brian)
I have to say, her refusal to throw Berger under the bus raises her in my eyes as well. Why should politicians be expected to denounce friends who do something stupid?
John Cole
It wasn’t just stupid. It was stupid and criminal and part of a number of things that strikes at the public confidence in elected officials. Let’s not minimize it by just saying it was stupid.
That being said, I see no reason why she should have to publicly attack an old (and disgraced) friend for NOT having any official role in her campaign.
Punchy
Mr. Cole, you know by now that that even if Hillary came out and said, “Sandy is no longer a friend of mine and not an advisor”, Drudge would post the following:
Clinton’s “friend”, Berger, reported to be “an advisor”
Reported by Drudge, or course. The truth doesn’t matter to these guys anymore. Cut and paste the words together. Easy.
Mike
The name “San Francisco Examiner” was sold off when the old Examiner (a Hearst paper) bought out the more popular Chronicle and adopted that name. What remains is a tabloid piece of junk I’d barely trust to get the baseball scores right.
Zifnab
Well, whatever. I just remember the Sandy Berger scandal/non-scandal vacillated between the gravest breach of national security since Benedict Arnold to “he made a photocopy of something” and the collective rightwing’o’sphere shit a brick.
Although, as politically calculating as Clinton is, I suspect that she ran the numbers a long time back and concluded that no one gives a crap about what Rush Limbaugh is working himself into a foamy lather about today anymore. In fact, watching the old wingers fall back on one of their favorite whipping boys probably does more in the Dems’ favor over the long run. I wonder how many audience members tunned in and assumed they were listening to a rerun.
Still, the fact that she hasn’t put out a restraining order against him speaks to her confidence. She’s not in the least be scared of this kind of smear.
capelza
Eliot Abrams… an “informal” advisor to Bush. Oh wait, he did get a pardon from Bush, Sr…so that makes it okay. Iran-Contra vs. some dude who took copies of documents.
Mike…I loved the Chronicle when I was kid. It was the paper in our home up in Eureka.
Jake
Fixed.
Still waiting for a “source close to the HRC campaign” to tell us Hilary has confessed to icing Vince Foster.
The Other Steve
Wasn’t there some guy working in the DoD under Rumsfeld who had been tossed out of government back in the 1970s by Kissinger for giving secrets to the Israelis?
Richard Perle I think it was.
rawshark
So Balloon Juice is a righty blog again? Or only when you post about Hillary?
The Other Steve
I’m writing a new TV show. It’s going to be called ‘Everybody loves Hillary’.
It’ll star Bill and Hillary, with their grumpy parents… played by Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin.
Rex
Michael Ledeen is an ‘unofficial advisor’ to GW Bush and that guy was arm-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal. Destroying documents is at least tantamount to deliberately assisting in arming a country that we have been at war with since 1979 (or at least that is what Mr. Ledeen has been saying recently).
Heffalump 2008
IOKIYAR!
IOKIYAR!
IOKIYAR!
Redleg
That’s the difference between John Cole and the wingnut blogosphere- John admits he made a precipitous rush to judgment and then posts a mea culpa and some updates- the wingut bloggers would never admit they’re wrong about anything and will continue to lie and dig themselves in deeper and deeper when they’re confronted with the facts.
Keep up the good work, John. It’s nice to know that there are still some decent conservatives out there.
Zifnab
There’s nothing right wing about not liking Hillary Clinton. She’s not fooling as many on the left with her DINO political positions as wingers like to believe.
capelza
Zinfab…I HATE thew term DINO as much as RINO. It separates those of the party that others do not agree with, even though said person has been a member of said party for decades. I saw it, in the RINO version thrown at Mark Hatfiled or anyone who didn’t tow the party line that the wingnuts who took over the party decided was the “real” party.
Like I said, I HATE that.
I was at Kos today and there was a diary about this very Sammon article, and it was used as the basis for all kinds of Hillary Hate. I found it shocking that supposed progressives were aping the wingnut talking points (HE STUFFED STOLEN DOCUMENTS IN HIS UNDERWEAR!!!!)because they don’t like her. That’s just crazy talk and makes “progressives” who parrot less than “reality based”.
Don’t like the lady, but don’t use bullshit talking pointsd and DINO (who is to say who a Democrat is?…this stings personally for me because I got called one for owning guns at Kos a few years ago..my response to that is who the fuck are YOU to tell me I am a DINO you little shit?)
capelza
Apology if that post sounded shrill….I’m tired from pounding the keys on that diary at Kos. I am in shock really.
washerdreyer
It’s also almost certainly misleading to describe Jonathan Adler (formerly known as Juan Non-Volokh, formerly (and possibly currently) a regular contributor to National Review Online and currently a major contributor at the Volokh conspiracy) as a Clinton admirer, even if he does like her better than the other Democrats. I don’t know anything in particular about his candidate of choice for 2008, but I’ve no reason to think he’s crossing the aisle.
Shinobi
Important question, who DOESN’T offer advice when you are a political candidate?
Everybody seems to have advice for politicians.
KC
This was true for me as well. However, I read Joe Conason’s book, The Hunting of the President, a few years ago, and it really led me believe that a lot of what I thought about Hillary and Bill Clinton was simply garbage. The Clintons were just the first real victims of the new rightwing smear machine we’ve all come to love and enjoy. Much of the reason why the Clintons are “controversial” is simply because the right spent the 90s screaming about them so loudly. After all, their policy preferences are pretty middle of the road and their screw ups are really no worse than those of standard politicians. We’ve just been programmed to think everything they do is “calculating” and contrived, that they are as ruthless as the GOP, and that they lack moral courage or principal. That’s certainly not to say that the Clintons don’t have their issues or that Hillary is a wonderful person, it’s just to say that accusations from the right and their friends in the media deserve extra scrutiny sometimes.
capelza
Agree KC.
They were gunning for the Clinton’s before they ever moved into the WHite House and they never let up once. For me 90’s politics was one long CLINTON!!! hissed with Invasion of the Body Snatchers intensity.
Hey, did you know that Ruby Ridge is even Clinton’s fault? That’s a good one to post on RW sites. Along with Waco. People don’t even stop to think twice. It’s part of the lore.
capelza
Would someone please steal that diary title and write a diary at Kos (or anywhere) about this. Maybe the benadryl is really kicking in, but I can’t get that out of my head.
Cheerful Iconoclast
Actually, she said he had no “official” role, which sounds to me like a — dare I say it? — Clintonesque evasion. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask if he has any unofficial role, either. If she wants to say “we’re still friends, but given his criminal conviction, he doesn’t advise me,” I’d be fine with that. But I think it’s reasonable to say that Sandy Berger should not be allowed near the levers of power again. Ever.
Oh, and just to be clear, I would say the same of (say) Fred Thompson and Scooter Libby. Quite a few members of the Bush Administration ought not be advising any President, either.
VidaLoca
Uh, wait a minute.
In a more rational frame of reference (say, such as they seem to have in Europe) the Democratic Party would be viewed as a center-right coalition and the Republicans would be viewed as a proto-fascist clique. And Hillary is the consummate Democratic Party insider. Now I’m not going to slag her (well, any more than I just did) but look at it this way: the country is well on the road, both economically and politically, to becoming the equivalent of a third-world banana republic. And while it’s taken quantum leaps in that direction under both Bush administrations, the intervening Clinton years brought policies like NAFTA, MFN status for China, etc. that pushed the economy in essentially the same direction that the Bush policies did. There’s no reason to expect that all to turn around if Hillary is elected, and the cast of characters that surrouded the B. Clinton administration will come popping right up out of their think-tanks if H. Clinton is elected.
So to Capelza’s point: yes, throwing around epithets like DINO is not helpful — but people, let’s not forget, these are both elite parties that fundamentally represent elite interests.
No, keep your shields up John. I’ll vote for Hillary if she’s nominated but the recycling of the court nobles in the context of dynastic politics is NOT a good thing for the country.
Jonathan H. Adler
I agree with washerdreyer that it was odd for the Examiner to characterize me as a Clinton admirer just because I said I found her to be the most impressive Democratic candidate. That said, I do not think this was an over-hyped or false story. As I note here, today’s Examiner story was not the first report that Berger has been one of those most relied upon by Senator Clinton for foreign policy advice.
JHA
Cheerful Iconoclast
I’m not a big fan of the current big-government Republicans, but who decreed that European social democracy is the more “rational” framework?
Quackers
John Cole said: There is a reason why, over the past six years, when I have been trying to caution Republicans not to expand certain executive powers I have asked them to think how they would feel about President Hillary Clinton with that authority. In my opinion, Hillary will openly embrace the Bush policy of “Doing Whatever the Fuck I Want.” This is just more confirmation of my perception.
Exactly. I don’t want ANY president of either party enjoying the powers Bush has allotted himself. It’s a recipe for disaster to think we’ll never have a President who will abuse the office in ways we can’t even imagine.
Richard Bottoms
Or it could be her politely telling the howling conservative slime machine and anyone who still believes a word they say to screw off.
Any dimwit who thinks they wouldn’t dare be so mean to Obama and America just wants people in Washington to get along are as stupid as anyone who ever voted for George Bush once, and especially those who did it twice.
Hillary will take a lead pipe to Rudy and anyone else the GOP puts up. We’re going to drill the Republicans in 2008 without vaseline, or a kiss, and them kick them in the balls while they are down.
Thousands dead and wounded, millions displaced, billions wasted. Hillary too divisive? Piss off.
HH
“Or it could be her politely telling the howling conservative slime machine and anyone who still believes a word they say to screw off.”
And it would be just as easy to say “no role whatsoever” too.
Richard Bottoms
>And it would be just as easy to say “no role whatsoever” too.
Ohhh scary Hillary, what will she do next.
She’s going to wipe the floor with whatever pathetic GOP clown they send up. Fuck them. Fuck being polite, or giving an inch to these assholes. She could rob a bank and use Newt Gingrich as a human shield and still win in 2008.
rachel
But would that get her off the hook? Her husband’s acquainted with the guy, and so are a lot of her friends and colleagues. Who’s to say one of them won’t meet Mr. Berger for lunch one day, and the next thing we read in the papers is, “Hillary lied, OMG!” whether or not she knew anything about it or not.
Chris Johnson
The one thing I like most about Hillary is, she knows the papers WILL say ‘Hillary lied, OMG!’ and ‘Hillary murdered Mr Rogers!’ and ‘Hillary cuckolded by Bill- again!’ and she DOES NOT CARE.
I like that. Nobody would be exempt from such treatment. I think Obama also shows signs of backbone, but Hillary is, like, vanHilla Ice and I honestly don’t think there’s a thing they could say or do that would faze her.
I’m very dubious about her globalization-oriented policies inherited from Clinton 1, totally agree that she’s basically an old-school Republican with some liberal streaks, but this country _did_ _okay_ when we had Clinton 1. I prefer the problems they caused to the problems Bush caused- more relevantly, I think Bush has handed us SUCH a bad mess that it will take a Churchill-esque personality to straighten it out, and I see Hillary as being that arrogant and entitled.
The great thing is, she’ll be a great hatchet man because she knows it doesn’t actually matter what she does, the wingnuts will consider her the Devil whether she humors them or not. With Obama, I guess he’s not all that much more likely to roll over for the wingnut demands, but I have a feeling he’d be a very unhappy man as President inheriting such a shit sandwich.
Hillary would be much happier as President, even if she does not totally abuse the power. The Clintons are both comsummate weasel politicians and rockstars, plus they’re shrewd and mean. I want them there while we try and clean up some of the damage. I want them there as we continue to deal with enraged Al-Quaeda and Islam. It could be the difference between a survivable crash landing for our country, and a smoking crater.
Chris Johnson
It actually reminds me of a Robert Heinlein story in which a black woman becomes President. There are some great scenes where she faces down sexist, racist cabinet members, firing them, even standing her ground when some of the Joint Chiefs physically attack a racist, sexist military leader for sassing her and disrespecting her authority- a beautiful image of military guys’ loyalty to chain of command and their training overcoming petty prejudices.
Then Heinlein completely blows it by having the woman succumb to a private attack of the vapors and womanly vulnerability- which is all very well if you’re trying to make the character a good 50s woman, but the great thing about Hillary is that she could be in a scene like that, be just as tough, and then have no private fits of the vapors. It’s pretty plain to see she’s hard as nails and all politician. I think you have to have that to make tough decisions, and I also think this is one of George Bush’s hugest faults: whatever his private demons are, they obviously haunt him so bad that he’s a posturing fool who can’t stand the slightest criticism. That’s such a bad quality in a US President…
rachel
I don’t like Hillary much myself, but I think she won’t be worse than any other Republican–except maybe Ron Paul.
Mark From Cleveland
Doesn’t Adler post on NRO? Seems to me that puts him in a demographic that is unlikely to want to do anything helpful for any Democrat.
VidaLoca
Maybe. I’ll grant you she’s got some debts on which she’d probably like some payback. But the one time she did have a fight on her hands, in which a little leadership and a little toughness in the face of the Republicans’ screaming, crying, whining and bellyaching could have gone a long way, was the health care debacle during B. Clinton’s first administration. That one was envisioned as a political deal-at-the-top among a spaghetti bowl of contending interests, with no thought given to organizing public support for the pushback against the insurance and health care interests that anyone in their right mind would have seen coming. And it was a clusterf*ck; it was about as well thought out as the occupation of Iraq has been. Maybe she’s learned something since then but I don’t see any support in her record in the Senate that makes me picture her as a leader or a fighter for much of anything. She’s a wheeler-dealer among elite interests and a triangulator in the face of public opinion.
Jan
If you don’t mind me adding…
1) I too get amazed at how willing Democrats are to repeat the GOP Slime Machine’s talking points. Best to FIRST find out WHY the GOP has THOSE particular talking points aimed against THAT particular person.
You’ll learn volumes about how the GOP Slime Machine operates.
2)On orders from the Bush cabal, the GOP Slime Machine has had their guns pointed at Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger since the 9/11 Commission reported to the GOP Congress. Why?
a) It came out that Berger had personally warned his counterpart, Condi Rice, that the Bush adminstration had only ONE enemy to focus on for the next four years — old friend Osama Bin Laden.
b) It then came out that Condi Rice et al responded to the Berger warning about Osama Bin Laden by pulling out a map of Iraq.
c) It then came out that NS *ADVISOR* Condi Rice ignored the advice within an August 6, 2001 PDB warning, about this very same Osama Bin Laden looking at tall American buildings to attack with big airplanes.
d) For doing “a heckuva job” NSA Condi Rice was then promoted to Sec of State, replacing General Betray-Us Powell.
Yeah, Sandy Berger having any credibilty whatsoever on national security advice is something the Loyal Bushie Clinton Haters are trying to bury alive.
My advise to all Bushie Haters: Don’t help them shovel the dirt.
Zifnab
Dude, I’m sorry, but she is not a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. She’s got a wishy-washy voting record on Iraq. She’s neck deep in special interests and corporate cronies. She comes from a conservative family and has so far maintained a very conservative track record in the US Senate.
She’s not crazy or stupid, so she’s no Republican. But she’s not a Howard Dean or John Edwards Democrat by a long shot. Her politics today are the politics of Reagan and Nixon 40 years ago, and that’s why she’ll win in a landslide. But she’s not a progressive, and you’re a fool if you think she is. Hillary Clinton will be the model centrist, just like her husband. But after 6 years of madly dashing to the right, this country needs a firm pull back left, not someone who’s just going to stack her ground and hang out.
DavidTC
Can we get rid of this insane idea that Berger ‘stole classified documents and destroyed them’?
Berger is not a traitor, and he did not ‘destroy’ any information at all, despite what the right likes to imply. (If someone can figure out a way to erase classified information from outside the NSA, the NSA would really like to know about it.)
He simply mismanaged classified information in a way that was a violation of the law and was dangerous, although no harm came from it and the information didn’t even leak out. He was rightly punished for this misdemeanor with fines and revocation of his security clearance.
And he acted responsibly by, at least, destroying his unlawful copies before anyone could get a hold of them. (I guess the right would rather he didn’t ‘destroy classified information’ but just left it laying around his house where anyone could get it.)
HH
“But would that get her off the hook?”
Yes. “No official role” does not mean “no role.”
HH
“When initially questioned by reporters, Berger claimed that the removal of the top-secret documents in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets was accidental. He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies and cutting three up with scissors. Archive staff stated they witnessed Berger, on more than one occasion, stuffing into his pants and into his jacket papers he was illegally removing. One witness saw Berger stuffing into his socks papers from the archives. [13] Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
Yeah, real responsible, that guy.
Rick Taylor
5) We can expect the next Presidential election to be just like the last two. The right will make stuff up about the Democratic candidate, the media will pass it along, and it will be up to the Democratic candidate to figure out how to respond.
I’m not voting for her, but I still think Hillary is the most likely candidate on the Democratic side to be able to play this game; she’s had to endure it for so long.
HH
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/101900/nat_20001019.058.shtml
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded Hillary Rodham Clinton gave ”factually false” testimony when she denied having a role in the White House travel office firings. “