Sandy Berger's Pants
By Marni Soupcoff
I hadn't really been following the Sandy Berger matter very closely until my boyfriend brought it up as we were having dinner the other day.
"Did you hear about Sandy Berger? He's been sticking documents down his pants." As partisan-politcked-out as I was feeling at that moment, this caught my attention.
"He's been doing what?" I asked.
"Sticking documents down his pants. And maybe down his socks."
My next question was the obvious one. How the hell did he fit documents in his pants? He must have been wearing some incredible extra-extra-extra-super-extra-relaxed Gap jeans fit that I hadn't even imagined existed! As for Berger's motivation, my first thought was that he was covering something up. (What, you thought of the "Is that a classified document in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" jokes first? Shame on you.)
In fact, I thought the cover-up assumption was so unassailably obvious that I assumed everybody else would be assuming it too. That turns out to have been a naive underestimation of the Democrats' unabashed capacity to spin. Once the Berger story hit, there were suddenly Berger-apologists popping up everywhere, describing how the whole thing was just an honest mistake, and aren't we all pretty much guilty of absent-mindedly stuffing things down our pants half the time anyway?
For example, Bill Clinton's former adviser David Gergen told the "Today Show" that the Berger situation is "more innocent than it looks," which, one has to note, isn't a very high bar. Others who worked with Berger during the Clinton years defended the former national security adviser by insisting he was always losing track of papers and appointments back then too. Which is either the lamest excuse invented to date ("No, don't worry about it. I've been mistakenly pawning and destroying classified documents for years now, and I never could keep that damn secret unlock code for the nuclear weapons straight.") or a very scary statement about the country's security under Clinton. Or perhaps it’s both.
The picture of Berger as an absentminded adviser with nothing to hide is starting to look even less believable now that the 9/11 report has been released. According to that document, Berger stood in the way of taking action against Al Qaeda threats four separate times during the pre-9/11 Clinton administration. Which is exactly the sort of poor judgment that could explain a sudden desire to do away with records of one's actions or choices.
Not that we know that the documents Berger took--and, ahem, misplaced--actually show the sort of damning evidence the 9/11 report appears to.
Thanks to Mr. Berger and his pants, we'll never know what those papers said. But to all but partisan Democrats too concerned with shielding John Kerry from the fallout from the stuffed trouser scandal to admit anything is amiss, Berger’s cover-up seems the sort of acrid smoke that portends serious fire. And Berger’s shameless excuse that this was all an "honest mistake" is the sort of Clintonian insult to the public's intelligence that both infuriates and implicates.
I suppose if I were making a Michael Moore style documentary, this would be the point at which I would conclude by telling everyone to vote Republican and keep those dastardly Democrats out of office. After all, I'd argue incoherently, the world was full of happy Iraqi children flying colorful kites before that nasty Mr. Berger started storing national security secrets in his boxers. Or something. And then I'd cue some loud catchy music before anyone had a chance to realize that what I was saying made very little sense indeed. But not being Michael Moore (a fact for which I am eternally grateful), I won't use the Berger mess to make a political ad.
I will, however, say that I think it is crucial that Berger be fully prosecuted and sanctioned for his mishandling of classified information. Amusing as his behavior is in its unlikely details (at least Nixon never fibbed his way into headlines about his underwear), it is a profoundly serious breach--more than merely morally suspect and dishonest. It is the sort of action that could conceivably put the security of the entire country at risk (the very reason for the safeguards and rules Berger seems to have, for a time at least, evaded).
For this, Sandy Berger must be held to account, regardless of what happens in November. And the penalty should be more serious than a few jokes about his pants.
Marni Soupcoff's column appears on Monday at TAEmag.com.
