The Berger affair

I'm certain that conservative blogs will report with excitement that President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, removed highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes during the Sept 11 commission. Here's the story so far:

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.

"I deeply regret the sloppiness involved, but I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission, and to the contrary, to my knowledge, every document requested by the commission from the Clinton administration was produced," Berger said in a statement to the AP.

I do take some comfort in the idea that he only knowingly took notes he had written for himself, even if this excuse is a little convenient. I think it is a bit too early to jump to conclusions that others will be eager to make. As always with stories like this one, it is best to wait a day or two and see where it leads.

A quick read on some conservative blogs before I publish does indeed find some sense of glee. Some are eager to point out Berger is working for Kerry as a security adviser, and speculate that the documents made Kerry look bad. I think it is safe to say that if Kerry had imagined Berger capable of something like this, he would not have him associated with his campaign.

It will be interesting to read what was actually contained in the documents as well. Berger claims that the documents he looked at he thought were copies, not originals, so it would make no sense for him to try and take them for the purpose of destruction.

Here's what I think is the key graph in the news story so far:

The missing documents involve two or three draft versions of the report as it was evolving and being refined by the Clinton administration, officials and lawyers say. The Archives is believed to have copies of some of the missing documents.

If I read that correctly, then the documents taken were not a final, comprehensive report, but rather drafts leading up one. It's like in school when you had to rewrite a term paper of thesis. You wrote a draft, then revised it, and then came up with a final paper. What's missing is those middle drafts. Unless the report underwent drastic revision, then it should not be as big of a deal as some conservaloggers are making it out to be. And it appears that we will be able to discover how great that revision period was as some copies are still in the archives.

While I agree that there is a serious nature to the whole affair, I reiterate that one should proceed with caution until the story takes more shape. It's possible that even I have overstated my case in a rush to judgment. We shall see in the weeks ahead.
*UPDATE* I missed a whole day of Bergermania, so I defer to Josh Marshall on this one. Read more here and here.