April 01, 2005

Sandy "Hamburglar" Pleads Guilty to Taking Documents

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, national security advisor to former President Bill Clinton, has pleaded guilty to removing documents from the National Archive without permission last year. The documents "involved a classified assessment of terrorist threats in 2000, which Mr. Berger was reviewing in his role as the Clinton administration's point man in providing material to the independent commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," according to the New York Times.

The Times says the guilty plea "capp[ed] an embarrassing episode that reverberated in last year's presidential campaign."

Reverbated? It hardly made a blip on the MSM radar.

A quick Google (yes, I know Google is under fire for its Leftwing tendencies) search for the term "Sandy Berger documents" brought up 97,100 hits. That seems like a respectable number...until you punch in the term "George W. Bush Air National Guard." That brought up 749,000 hits. Now I know this wasn't a scientitic study, but doesn't it seem strange that the MSM was more interested in W's Air National Guard service in Vietnam (a rehash from the 2000 election) than in Bill Clinton's former security advisor taking documents that were related to a (then) current investigation that resulted in the 9/11 commission report? When the Left was dying to prove Bush had culpability in the terrorist attacks?

Berger took the documents on September 2, 2004. Dan Rather's Memogate disaster aired September 8.

Don't forget, at the time he took the documents, Berger was a senior policy advisor to John Kerry in his presidential campaign. I don't recall John Kerry coming under fire under the "guilt by association" label (although Berger quickly stepped down from his advisorial post).

Also what, if any, was Bill Clinton's role in any of this? That question has never been asked by the MSM, defenders of truth and liberty.

This story should have been huge, but wasn't. In fact, today's news of his guilty plea isn't even on the front page, but buried in the "Washington" section of the Times (the online version).

What media bias? It's staring you right in the face.

Show Comments »