Who gets to laugh last?

Here's Dick Morris on the reaction of Bill and Hillary Clinton to the Sandy Berger bust:

The Clintons' reaction when Berger was caught? The former president's comments sound just too scripted to believe: He laughed and said that it was typical of Sandy to be disorganized and forget how he handled documents. Quite a comment about the man he appointed to superintend the nation's secrets.

Then Hillary announced, without being asked, that Sandy had just helped brief her for a February speech at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy — sending the adviser a signal that he was still part of the family, even though the grand jury was investigating him.

(Via InstaPundit.)

How to explain this apparent inconsistency? I don't know. Unless they knew in advance that nothing would really happen to him.....

The whole thing reeks. It is natural and a thing to be expected that Berger would (as Morris says he did) cover for the Clintons.

But why would Bush's Justice Department?

(For what it's worth, I previously voiced some gloomier suspicions. Perhaps my fears are wrong, and this is all just another example of the old boy network in action. Does that mean everything's OK?)

MORE: It's fascinating to note how this story has changed over time.

UPDATE (04/08/05): It now appears that the allegation of hand-written notations on the copies is an urban legend:

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 all.

"Those documents, emphatically, without doubt--I reviewed them myself--don't have notations on them," Mr. Hillman tells us. Further, "there is no evidence after comprehensive investigation to suggest he took anything other than the five documents at issue and they didn't have notes."

(Via InstaPundit.)

If that is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then it looks like Virginia Postrel's "bumbling Berger" theory was right all along.

(Not sure how to interpret the Journal's "conservatives don't do themselves any credit when they are as impervious to facts as the loony left" statement. . . Until Hillman furnished his explanation, just where were these "facts?")

MORE: Power Line's John Hinderaker is not completely satisfied -- either with Hillman's explanation or the WSJ's scolding.

posted by Eric on 04.06.05 at 06:57 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2184








March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits