E-mail this story to a friend Have comments? Send them to the editor. Printer Friendly Version Subscribe for Free!

When the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report (web site) in January providing new details of Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents from the National Archives, among those outraged by the revelations were members of the 9/11 Commission. Why? Because at the time of the incident, which took place during the 9/11 Commission hearings, the Justice Department failed to provide the full breadth of evidence against Berger. (You will likely recall that Berger, Clinton's former National Security Advisor, was "preparing" for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission related to the Clinton administration's failed anti-terrorism polices when the scandal took place.)

According to last Wednesday's edition of The Washington Post (web site), Phillip Zelikow, the commission's former executive director, said, "I think all of my colleagues would have wanted to have all the information at the time that we learned from the congressional report, because that would have triggered some additional questions, including questions we could have posed to Berger under oath."

Meanwhile, Dan Marcus, the commission's former general counsel, said it was "a little unnerving" to read the report and learn of these details only now.

So, what information did the Justice Department choose to keep from the 9/11 Commission charged with investigating the federal government's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Specifically, one National Archives staff member reported witnessing Berger take "original uncatalogued highly classified documents," and wrap them around his socks and beneath his pants to pilfer them from the Archives. Berger, of course, claims he only stole copies of documents. Justice Department officials ignored the Archives staff member, who had no motive to lie, and sided with Berger who had every reason to lie. The Justice Department made no mention of this eyewitness testimony to the 9/11 commission.

The Justice Department also ignored Nancy Kegan Smith, who directs the Archives' presidential documents staff. Smith admitted she violated secrecy rules and allowed Berger to view classified documents in her office. Smith later said "she would never know if original documents were missing."

The Justice Department also ignored Paul Brachfeld, inspector general of the National Archives, who asked them pointedly and repeatedly "to notify officials of the 9/11 Commission that Berger's actions...might have obstructed the commission's review of Clinton's terrorism policies."

Berger is still a player in Democratic national security circles and his political masters, the Clintons, would have been the primary beneficiaries of his malfeasance. Moreover, it is absolutely shameful that Berger has gotten off the hook with a small fine and community service for the egregious crime he committed. (The judge handling his case rejected the Justice Department's recommended punishment and imposed a harsher sentence.) And it is beyond comprehension that the Justice Department would keep evidence of the severity of Berger's crimes from the 9/11 Commission. When the history of the Bush administration is written, historians will note its sorry record of holding Clinton gang members accountable for their various crimes.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3