Wall Street Journal fuckup

Honk if you're a goose

REVIEW & OUTLOOK The Berger File Sandy Berger didn't destroy documents with notes in the margin. Friday, April 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Some people won't let a bad conspiracy theory go. We're referring to those who loudly assert that former NSC adviser Sandy Berger was trying to protect the Clinton Administration when he illegally removed copies of sensitive documents from the National Archives in late 2003. On Wednesday, we quoted Justice Department prosecutor Noel Hillman that no original documents were destroyed, and that the contents of all five at issue still exist and were made available to the 9/11 Commission. But that point didn't register with some readers, who continue to suggest a vast, well, apparently a vast left- and right-wing conspiracy. The Washington Times, the Rocky Mountain News and former Clintonite Dick Morris have also been peddling dark suspicions based on misinformation. The confusion seems to stem from the mistaken idea that there were handwritten notes by various Clinton Administration officials in the margins of these documents, which Mr. Berger may have been able to destroy. But that's simply an "urban myth," prosecutor Hillman tells us, based on a leak last July that was "so inaccurate as to be laughable." In fact, the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at a Blah-Blah-Blah REVIEW & OUTLOOK The Berger Files The case of the purloined archives gets stranger all the time. Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST The more we learn about Sandy Berger's brilliant career as a document thief, the clearer it becomes that there is plenty we still don't know and may never learn. On Tuesday, the House Government Reform Committee released its report on Mr. Berger's pilfering of classified documents from the National Archives. The committee's 60-page report makes it clear that Mr. Berger knew exactly what he was doing and knew that what he was doing was wrong. According to interviews with National Archives staff, Mr. Berger repeatedly arranged to be left alone with highly classified documents by feigning the need to make personal phone calls, and he used those moments alone with the files to stuff them in his pockets and briefcase. One incident is particularly suggestive. By his fourth and final visit to review documents and prepare for testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the Archives staff had grown suspicious of how Mr. Berger was handling the documents, so they numbered each one he was given in pencil on the back of the document. When one of them--No. 217--was apparently removed from the files by Mr. Berger, the staff reprinted a copy and replaced it for his review. According to the report, Mr. Berger then proceeded to slip the second copy "under his portfolio also." In other words, he stole the same document twice. This gives the lie to Mr. Berger's story that he was taking the documents for his own convenience, ... . Blah-Blah-Blah I bought this CD chronicling eight years of the WSJ editorial page Clinton  era coverage for $29.95.  From beginning to end they were spot on, and the only national paper of prominence that even tried to buck the Clinton media handlers. That's why these two stories don't make sense, and if the late Robert Bartley was still running things I don't think the 2005 Editorial would have seen the light of day.  Having chronicled 8+ years of wall to wall lies, obfuscation, cover-ups, misfeasance, malfeasance, political intrigue, botched opportunities, and yes, treason, why would anybody in America ever give a Clintoid the benefit of the doubt, in any matter?  And with this experience on file, especially the WSJ editorial pages?  Sheesh.   Fire whoever wrote that original fluff piece  - for not having the brains that God gave geese. Then write this 1000 times, "Anybody close to the Clintons is dishonest."