Philip Shenon, investigative reporter for the New York Times, has written a book on the 9-11 Commission and talked about it with Fresh Air host Terry Gross on National Public Radio Monday. Judging by Shenon's past willingness to heap all of the blame for 9-11 on the then eight-month old Bush administration (as opposed to the eight years of Clinton that preceded it), it's no surprise he praised Clinton's former National Security Advisor, the disgraced Sandy Berger, who got caught and convicted for shoving copies of classified documents into his socks.
Shenon hailed Berger and suggested he only did it because he feared Republicans would blame him and the Clinton administration for missing the 9-11 threat, even though, according to Shenon, "his friends and his colleagues will tell you that, you know, nobody was on top of the al-Qaeda threat like Sandy Berger."
Host Terry Gross: Your book begins with Sandy Berger, who was President Clinton's national security adviser, smuggling confidential documents out of the National Archives by stuffing them into his clothes. This is an infamous story. Why do you start there, and what did you learn about why he smuggled out the documents?
Philip Shenon: It's been a parlor game in Washington for a long time. Why would Sandy Berger destroy his reputation like this? It has an awful lot to do with Sandy Berger's personality. I believe he thought that if some of these documents found their way to the public or to Republicans on Capitol Hill that he would somehow be blamed for 9/11 when, in fact, a lot of his friends and his colleagues will tell you that, you know, nobody was on top of the al-Qaeda threat like Sandy Berger. And he did a lot of admirable work in trying to prepare for terrorist attacks as they rose up. The answer seems to be, as to why he stole these documents, that, again, he thought that some of these documents might somehow implicate him in not having acted fast enough or done enough to deal with the bin Laden threat over time....Again, I think that may reflect Sandy Berger's a catastrophizer. People who know Sandy Berger and know his record suggest that he's one of the people who might well have been saluted in the 9/11 Commission report for having been on top of al-Qaeda.
For the full account of Shenon's NPR interview, including his defense of former White House counterterrorism director (and Clinton partisan) Richard Clarke, visit TimesWatch.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Oy Vey!
February 7, 2008 - 17:02 ET by MassConservTalk about mental gymnastics!
He stole the records because he thought he might get blamed because he did such an awesome job.
Yeah, that makes sense... If you're a reporter for the NYT.
MassC; Rush thinks; He put papers BACK
February 7, 2008 - 19:22 ET by upcountrywaterin .Took some out put different one's back. Worked ! He's a hero now.
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE
Keep the change Bob. h/t Sam Peckinpah
my head is still
February 7, 2008 - 21:31 ET by red_dragon311my head is still spinning trying to understand what they are trying to say
"I believe he thought that if some of these documents found their way to the public or to Republicans on Capitol Hill that he would somehow be blamed for 9/11..."
doesn't THAT say enough.....i know this is like beating a dead horse but how about this
"I believe Rove/Libby/Bush/Cheney (pick your favorite) thought that if some of these documents found their way to the public or to Democrats on Capitol Hill that he would somehow be blamed for 9/11..."
gotta love how that sounds
"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin
How can anyone say that?
February 7, 2008 - 22:51 ET by pbthinkerWithout knowing exactly which documents he took, how can anyone say what they were about. If they would, indeed, paint a picture of the Clinton Administration being soft on national security, then how are we to assume this guy was doing an awesome job.
Let's just reverse the personalities, it's Karl Rove and George Bush, instead of the Burgler and Clinton, what does this Times reporter write? No need to answer, I can picture the 27 headlines from the NY Times already.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
We know what he took. He
February 8, 2008 - 12:48 ET by cleverpigWe know what he took. He took one memo, over and over again. It was a memo that Clark drafted at the request of the Clinton administration detailing steps that should be taken to prepare for a possible attack. Presumably Berger didn't follow through on at least some of the suggestions, and was worried that it would be an easy way to make the administration look incompetent.
In any case, he didn't get all the copies.
Whether or not he was on top of the Al Quaeda threat would be pretty easy to determine if we could look at memos, which we can't. The author of this book did, and spoke to commission staffers about what did and did not make it into the final report because of political considerations from both sides.
What I thought was even more interesting than the stuff about Berger, was that the staffers he spoke with believed that Clark's account of trying to warn the Bush administration about Al Quaeda was true. The commission didn't want to point fingers, so instead of showing the documentary evidence that he tried to spur action and was ignored, they presented a "fair and balanced" view in which Clark says "I warned you", Rice says "Nuh uh" and left it at that.
When did fair treatment of an argument become presenting both sides equally regardless of what the evidence actually says? I find that so frustrating!
→ No cleverpig
February 8, 2008 - 12:59 ET by Cool ArrowWe do not "know" anything of the sort.
We know only that Sandy Berger sabotaged the most important investigation of our lives - The 9/11 Commission. Many times more important than the Warren Commission.
Treason, pure and simple. An obstruction aimed at hiding the truth.
♣ a seal
Well, I haven't read the
February 8, 2008 - 16:25 ET by cleverpigWell, I haven't read the book, so I suppose you are right, I don't know. I have no argument with you on obstruction of the 9/11 commission.
"...a lot of his friends
February 7, 2008 - 17:02 ET by mattm"...a lot of his friends and his colleagues will tell you..."
Sorry Mr. Leftoid, I'd rather let the facts tell me who was "on top" of Al Qaeda and who was on top of White House interns...
Leave it to the libs to try to put lipstick on a pig.
1993 WTC - "the wall"
February 7, 2008 - 17:10 ET by Gary HallIn the light of considering what might have been had the Clinton administration listened to the rather loud calls following the 1993 attack on the WTC to tear down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement, if this, quote, "investigative reporter" Philip Shenon, ever bothered to research his own limp newspaper:
"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"
One can only imagine had the CIA and the FBI been ordered to share information and to work together following the 1993 attacks, what might have been prevented.
Number 2. What about Al Gore's Airport Safety and Airport Security Commission in the late 90's? It's recommendations to beef up security, background checks, etc., might have put us on the road to preventing 9/11 as well, but - the Clinton administration and the Democrat Party was paid off by lobbyists in the airline industry and VP Gore called it off. Here's one read (the MSM has no interest in investigative reporting - nor in indicting their own): How Gore aborted air safety
Yea, right!
February 7, 2008 - 17:41 ET by kg"People who know Sandy Berger and know his record suggest that he's one of the
people who might well have been saluted in the 9/11 Commission report for having
been on top of al-Qaeda"
Wait a minute! Wasn't Berger the one who said we didn't want bin Laden? Said it would make the U.S. look bad if we went after him?
Yea, I see it now. On top of al-Qaeda. Right!
"...nobody was on top of
February 7, 2008 - 17:48 ET by fitzfong"...nobody was on top of the al-Qaeda threat like Sandy Berger..."
Which was exactly the problem. Nobody in the Clinton Administration had the courage or the honesty to treat al-Qaeda as the threat it was. And the person who "was on top of the al-Qaeda threat like nobody" was such an incompetent that his apologists in the Democrat Party had to concoct the claim that he was "sloppy" to avoid admitting that he was traitorous. Berger stole those documents to hide his (and the Clinton Administration's) crucial indifference, ineptitude and ultimate failure. Period.
And no amount of revisionist spin from Clinton PR writers at the New York Times is going to change that.
Sandy Burgler's new gig
February 7, 2008 - 17:56 ET by Andantehttp://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020vXeqtH2UYA7QOjzbkF/SIG=12nd06r4v/EXP=1202506839/**http%3A//img59.photobucket.com/albums/v180/helograd/sandy_gelling.jpg
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."... Karl Marx? Nope, it was Hillary Clinton.
Really, then why was he
February 7, 2008 - 20:00 ET by motherbeltReally, then why was he still a threat when Berger's guy left office???
Let me see if I got this
February 7, 2008 - 17:54 ET by BDLet me see if I got this right....He stole documents that he knew implicated him, even though he was the only guy who was on top of the situation and would likely be honored by the commission.
Boy, it certainly takes a lot of "Therapy" to be Gross and Shenon.
Okay, anybody remember this one?
February 7, 2008 - 18:42 ET by drillanwrhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=RDADTMqDDL8&feature=related
I want whatever Philip Shenon's having ...
This article
February 7, 2008 - 18:51 ET by zoro7957............brings up an interesting thought; should "reporters" be subjected to drug testing?
My theory is that the
February 7, 2008 - 18:52 ET by balboaMy theory is that the reason Berger stuffed documents into his socks is the same reason Alberto Gonzalez suddenly got an acute case of selective amnesia.
Now bal -
February 7, 2008 - 18:57 ET by drillanwr"Selective amnesia"? ... Theft and destruction of secret government papers from a government archives, lying about it, and evading the court mandated polygraph for how long? (John Gibson stopped counting)?
Go ahead. I'll let ya take another stab at it, hun.
Well what else would you
February 7, 2008 - 19:01 ET by balboaWell what else would you call the hour or however long it was of Gonzalez saying he couldn't recall, he didn't remember, he remembers a meeting but doesn't remember if he was at the meeting, he was at the meeting but doesn't remember what was said, remembers what was said but doesn't remember who said it or if he agreed with them, and so on?
Hey, I'm just sayin' ...
February 7, 2008 - 19:07 ET by drillanwrHey, I'm just sayin' ... Nobody produced a "stained blue dress" (per say) to prove AG's memory "wrong" ...
But the missing documents ARE still ... missing after Berger admitted to taking them.
Waterboard Sandy
February 8, 2008 - 10:54 ET by BDWaterboard Sandy Burgler!!!!
Teee heee... That should get them in an uproar.
Or..............
February 7, 2008 - 18:58 ET by zoro7957.........balboa is hording all the good stuff..............
Not even close to being good stuff
February 7, 2008 - 19:17 ET by IamTinmanBalboa is just trying to divert attention from the felonious crimes of "Socks" Berger. The Clintons are desperately trying to clean up Billy Jeffs legacy now that the campaign is tightening up and the NYT is trying to spin the obviously tasty stuff..
Not at all. Berger was
February 7, 2008 - 19:37 ET by balboaNot at all. Berger was shady. But Gonzalez is far from clean in my
book, and again, I think the motive behind both men's actions are the
same.
Major Difference
February 7, 2008 - 19:47 ET by Del DolemonteThere's a major difference between going into the National Archives, then stealing, smuggling out, and in some cases destroying documents, and saying "I can't recall".
Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.
Are you
February 7, 2008 - 19:49 ET by zoro7957............serious? One man is caught in the act of stealing materials from the archives, and the other is caught of..........mmmmmm (scrathing my head).....maybe parsing his words?
I didn't say they were the
February 7, 2008 - 19:54 ET by balboaI didn't say they were the same thing, did I?
What was
February 7, 2008 - 20:08 ET by zoro7957................Gonzales lying about?
Hard to tell, isn't it?
February 7, 2008 - 20:13 ET by balboaHard to tell, isn't it?
Bal
February 7, 2008 - 20:21 ET by zoro7957..........you made the claim......now back it up with evidence...........end of story.
Yeah, the point is that
February 7, 2008 - 20:27 ET by balboaYeah, the point is that it's not possible, because Gonzalez conveniently forgot everything about anything.
If he REALLY can't remember anything, then he's not very bright and Bush was an idiot for appointing him.
My point
February 7, 2008 - 20:35 ET by zoro7957...........of contention, is how can you even compare the two?
I'm not comparing the two
February 7, 2008 - 20:41 ET by balboaI'm not comparing the two incidents themselves. The MOTIVE behind
the actions is what I'm comparing. If you read Berger's "explanation,"
it sounds like he wasn't so much worried that the documents would get
them in trouble but how they would be used as ammo by Republicans
against the Dems. I think that's exactly the same reason Gonzalez
suddenly started auditioning for the sequel to "Memento": How his
statements might be twisted and used against Republicans by Dems.
So the
February 7, 2008 - 21:08 ET by zoro7957.............thoughts in ones head, equates to actualality, recorded in transcript, on paper?
Dude, you are so grasping at
February 7, 2008 - 23:41 ET by fitzfongDude, you are so grasping at straws.
Dude
February 7, 2008 - 23:43 ET by botgit's Bal (what did you expect?)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
How do you know? Do you
February 7, 2008 - 23:44 ET by balboaHow do you know?
Do you think Gonzalez ACTUALLY couldn't remember all that stuff?
It's a theory. I don't know either, but it's my theory.
Balboa - the lay of the land.
February 7, 2008 - 23:55 ET by Gary HallBalboa. Look, Gonzalez took the hits. I'm sure he deserved a few of them. You think he deserved more of them. Fine.
The fact here is that Gonzalez took more grief for whatever it is that he did or didn't do or didn't remember from the MSM then the entirety of the Clinton administration, including the bumbling crook Sandy Berger. You can go out on the street -- and back date that to the period of time in which Sandy Berger should have been at the top of every news hour on should have been on the front page and in on the editorial page of every national newspaper -- and ask the typical angry activist who hates and blames Bush for all of 9/11 or the average Democrat avid reader and watcher and PBS listener of the news, and you will find out that 90% of them never even heard about the Berger caper. I know, I've asked a hundred or better, and the typical answer is either, "what?" "who" or "oh, they dropped those silly charges."
That, Balboa, is the lay of the land.
I'm not debating that, am
February 7, 2008 - 23:59 ET by balboaI'm not debating that, am I?
WHO CARES? The Senate
February 8, 2008 - 00:06 ET by fitzfongWHO CARES? The Senate Democrats had no business asking those questions to begin with. The Administration had the right to fire none, some or all of those attorneys. Period. The Senate Democrats, overly cocky from an electoral victory in November 2006, began a litany of bogus hearings and investigations...wasting taxpayer money in the process. They created a "scandal" out of nothing, and as such, the Administration had NOTHING to answer for. The fact that Alberto Gonzalez gave ham handed responses to questions he shouldn't have been subjected to in the first place is irrelevant. Now Berger, on the other hand, was scheduled to testify in front of the "bipartisan" 9/11 Commission. In an effort to conceal information from the Commission, Berger stole and destroyed CLASSIFIED information from the National Archive. That's a real scandal.
<pheeww!>
February 8, 2008 - 00:59 ET by drillanwrTaking a breath ...
Amazon Reader Reviews
February 7, 2008 - 19:51 ET by Del DolemonteBe sure to go to the amazon.com link for the book. There are two extremely funny "reader reviews" there. The first one, by a college kid with an extreme case of BDS, even goes so far as to claim that the evil Bush personally selected some members of the 9/11 Commission to make him look good.
Unmentioned, of course, is that the Democrats snuck Hillary confidant Richard Ben-Veniste onto that Commission, as well as a Clinton Administration official who in fact should have been questioned under oath by the very Commission she was a member of.
Barf. To thine
February 7, 2008 - 22:09 ET by rbosqueBarf.
To thine own-self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day.
Thou can'st not then be false to any man.
-- Hamlet. Act I. Sc. 3
→ NYT comics
February 8, 2008 - 08:07 ET by Cool ArrowThis is hilarious. Of course Sandy Burglar stuffed all the incriminating stuff in his pants and walked stiff-legged out the door with a big grin on his face.
Now the NYT wants to rewrite history raising a traitor to the status of statesman. Isn't that their M.O.?
This is their idea of fairplay. A traitor elevated to statesman (Burglar), and a Great American is reduced to traiter (Petraeus).
Wouldn't walk across the street to p#ss on them if they were on fire.
♣ a seal
There is a very simple
February 8, 2008 - 10:18 ET by Hunter12There is a very simple explanation for Berger's actions, he was cold. It was early Fall, and the day turned cold, so he lined his socks with paper to stay warm on his way home. Being the noble figure that he is, he chose papers that made him out to be a hero and on top of al Queada as those that would be least missed from the Archives. Since he has a terrible foot odor problem, the papers had to be destroyed after being used in such a fashion.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill