The Sandy Berger thing is totally revealing

The National Security Director for Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, when out of office, and during the run up to the 9/11 investigation, amid VALID, POINTED questions about whether that 8 year long administration, had done enough to act against Al Qaeda, was convicted of stealing documents from the secure national archives, and cutting them up with scissors.

Those are an inarguable set of facts.

The puzzle around those facts, except for the delusional, is that whatever those docs were, they were not flattering about the plans, beliefs and judgments of Bill Clinton and his associates over foreign affairs.

They may have been utterly damning. Whatever it was Mr. Berger was seen stuffing into his pants on different occasions, to hide beneath a house nearby, then retrieve and destroy is unknown, since hte registered docs hand handwritten notes. (BTW is anyone wondering, as I am, WHY the National Archives don't have electronic scanning and repository storage for EVERYTHING?)

Today amid the hub-bub over this man being an 'unpaid adviser' to the new-old Clinton for foreign affairs a host of unpleasant questions arise, and de-rigeur partisan responses fill the air.

Why would Hillary use such a man NOW? Blackmail over whatever was in the destroyed docs? Arrogance? Stupidity? Or belief in the soft power, avoid problems and punt them down the temporal line to the next prez theory as a guiding light?

Rejecting this entire thesis is the democratic line that people like Eliot Abrams convicted in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation serve in the govt today under Bush.

But let's look at what the difference is.

Abrams withheld information on operations dedicated to what he believed was national security. Berger stole and destroyed historical records which, more likely than not, demonstrated the Clinton Admin's lack of fervor for actions in defense of just exactly that.

One is belief that he is taking a hit for the team (the team being the USA).The other is saving the skins of a departed group from embarrassment and calumny.

I am one who believed that nomatter her clearly socialist leanings on domestic issues, Ms Clinton was someone who would put her hair up and KILL EVERY SOB trying to kil us.

Given her use of Mr. Berger I no longer consider that to be true.

There is now in the field no democrat I believe has any shred of credibility on national security.

Not one.

Nor one with the temerity to tell Moveon/Soros off, even to make it LOOK GOOD, and quietly pass the message that it's just for PR.

Who among them will stand up for the USA among the West European allies when they are carping about something we did or didn't do? Who will not attempt to assuage and appease them or those who hate us for cultural and religious reasons? Who will push back when the third world's false propaganda machine churns out how we have ?% of the world's population but use 99.999999% of its resources? Who will put on the brakes forcefully when morons in Brussels march to protest that our lack of support for Kyoto is killing the world? Who will put such ideas on the spot for AMERICA?
Not one of these candidates. The values dear to us thru history must be defended ACTIVELY, and vigilantly from others, as well as from our own govt, democrats.

Some of these candidates make amends with Syrian Dictators while blaming us and our allies for the world's problems. All of them kowtow to a man who says that the USA is the preventer of peace and justice in the world, and believed that even to attack Afghanistan in 2001 was wrong. One wonders if a man who accepted Somoza as a dictator in Nicaragua would have been acceptable to such a man as he who controls Moveon, Media Matters, the Open Society Institute Groups, and the Center for American Progress.

Not one of these Democrats is fit to be president today. The only one who had any bona fides in this vein, is of course no longer one. Significantly he was claimed by a (self proclaimed) member of Ted Kennedy's staff - to me- on line- to be a spineless coward, and probably a criminal.