Ann Coulter Shocked By Lack of Outrage Over Sandy Berger
As NewsBusters has reported here and here, there has been a shockingly deafening silence from the American media concerning revelations of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s actions at the National Archives in 2003. In fact, it appears that only Fox News has much interest in a story about a top-level political official stealing and destroying top secret documents from the facility responsible for storing them.
With that in mind, “Your World” invited Ann Coulter on to discuss this issue on Thursday, and the conservative author was not shy (video available here courtesy of our friend at Ms Underestimated). After guest host David Asman gave some background, he asked his guest: “Ann Coulter, where is the outrage? Are you surprised that there is no outrage about this?”
Ann didn’t disappoint:
Shocked, I am shocked. No, actually, this is back to the left's normal position. What was strange was when they pretended to care about national security with Valerie Plame. And then when it turned out for one thing, she wasn’t undercover and for another thing the person who outed her name was opposed to the war in Iraq, they went back to their normal position which is to be in favor of outing CIA agents. I mean, they did this back in the '70s. There was Counterspy magazine printing the names of CIA agents. And people that worked in the Clinton administration defended that. So, now we’re at least back to the position where they’re in favor of harming national security.
As this discussion was too funny to interrupt, the reader should view it in its pristine condition (corrected from closed captioning):
Asman: Well, let’s talk about what Sandy Berger actually did. Again, this is a guy that has the top, top national security clearance, he is, after all, the National Security Adviser, he goes into the archives several occasions, takes out five copies of the same document, this is according to the Washington Post, later uses scissors to destroy three of these five documents before placing them in his office trash. And, then, I mean this guy went through a very long, complex, thorough mechanism in order to destroy these documents. Why? Why? What was in there?
Coulter: And, the trickiest part of this scheme was when he put the document in his underwear and socks but all of his defenders on TV claimed it was inadvertent. We’ve got to go back to those “Hannity & Colmes” tapes and play back the defense of this guy.
Asman: But why do you think he went through all this?
Coulter: Well, that’s the big question.
Asman: What was in there that was so important?
Coulter: Well, that’s what I’m wondering. What this document allegedly was is according to his lawyer -- we do not know. I mean…
Asman: His lawyer claims that there was nothing in those documents that has not since been released even though he took five of these documents, five copies out of the archives.
Coulter: Right, which looks a little suspicious. We got to get the Jersey Girls on this, since this was all for the 9/11 Commission to burnish the reputation of Bill Clinton, and this is of course why they leap on a docudrama like that 9/11 docudrama, “The Path to 9/11,” because as we know Clinton was doing nothing. He did not want to know –
Asman: So, you think what these documents show is that despite al Qaeda having declared war on the U.S., and bombing the Cole, etc., that they were not doing enough to go after al Qaeda?
Coulter: Well, we know that with or without these documents. This is just the icing on the cake. Osama was offered to Bill Clinton, he wasn’t interested.
Asman: He was at one of those hunting camps in Afghanistan.
Coulter: Right and every year or two years there would be another attack on America, America’s interests, America’s troops by al Qaeda and he did nothing, nothing, nothing, he was busy with Monica Lewinsky. We know this, and if the 9/11 Commission had not been partisan, with people like Jamie Gorelick responsible for the walls separating intelligence from law-enforcement that could have captured some of the 9/11 terrorists except for what the commissioner on the 9/11…
From there, the discussion moved in Hillary’s direction:
Asman: What does all this say if anything about Hillary Clinton and the way she might deal national security?
Coulter: [Laughs] Yes. Good question. Well, she trained at the feet of the master. No, I guess that was Monica. Sorry.
Asman: Oh, please…who just graduated from the London School of Economics. Hillary Clinton, if she becomes president, if she’s running for president, she's going to have to announce how she will deal with national security. She’s not going to go near this Sandy Berger issue. But, how do you think she will approach national security?
Coulter: But, how will she govern? She also allowed her husband to run for president when she was being called Hillary Clinton, the moment he gets elected she calls herself Hillary Rodham Clinton. She can try to distance herself as much as possible from Sandy Berger, and maybe the American people will fall for it. And then Sandy Berger will be Secretary of State.
Asman: Now, is this fodder for Republicans? Are Republicans in the next election , are they going to bring up Sandy Berger and say hey, look if this is the way the last Clinton administration ran national security, what about the next Clinton administration?
Coulter: Yeah, I think so, because it is an hilarious story, he is stuffing national security documents in his underwear. I mean, the complex stories you can never get people to focus on. This story…and plus, I go back to the fact -- we don’t know, I think, maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think we know with confidence what was in these documents. Maybe he destroyed five of them, what was that document and how do we know it was that document, how do we know he didn’t destroy all of them?
Of course, no media discussion on Thursday could have been complete without addressing the most important issue facing our nation today:
Asman: What do you think, this is out of leftfield, but what do you think about the way that Donald Trump is dealing with the Rosie thing?
Coulter: I’m all on his side and for the first time in my life I am not sure I disagree with what Rosie said but I’m still on his side.
Coulter: Oh, just because I don’t like Rosie. I think she is not an attractive or interesting person or funny.
Asman: But you think…
Coulter: But, other than that I love her.
Asman: It doesn’t have anything to do with Miss USA and Trump’s decision?
Coulter: No, like I say, for the first time, as far as I know, unless she’s said something else that I’m not aware of. If all she said was something about the irony of Donald Trump who’s been married several times and had an affair when he had kids.
Asman: So, what she was saying you don’t disagree with?
Coulter: For the first time in my life I don’t disagree with Rosie O’Donnell for her making a statement, but I think she is an unpleasant person and she has done a lot of other things and I like Donald Trump more than Rosie.
The discussion concluded by moving back to Hillary, with Coulter asking the pivotal question that all Americans want to know about the junior senator from New York:
Asman: Hillary was on Rosie. What do you think of Hillary’s attempt to get into the White House?
Coulter: Well, I think the only question that I want to know is what all Americans need to know, which “The View” could have asked Hillary – boxers or briefs. That’s what we want to know.
Actually, on second thought, maybe that would be waaaaay too much information.