John Kerry, Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton: An Honest Mistake?

George C. Landrith

Bill Clinton has not occupied the Oval Office for more than 3 years and John Kerry has not yet faced a national election, but both are potentially knee deep in a serious scandal – and this one is not about sex. This one involves national security.

Sandy Berger – who was Clinton’s National Security Advisor and who has been advising presidential candidate John Kerry on national security issues – admits that he removed highly classified and top-secret documents from a National Archives “safe room.” He also admits that he subsequently discarded some of the top-secret documents. It is unknown whether America’s enemies discovered the classified information Berger discarded.

Mr. Berger excuses this shocking breach of national security saying it was a “sloppy error” but an “honest mistake.” Bill Clinton laughed it off because Berger often had stacks of paper all over his desk. John Kerry says that Berger is a trusted friend and questions the timing of these revelations. Other Democrats also question the timing.

Only John Kerry and his soft-on-national-security friends could respond to such a serious breach of security by asking, “Why now?” Perhaps Kerry can explain why now is a bad time for this story and when would be a better time. Kerry is apparently more concerned about the timing of the story than he is about the fact that his friend and his trusted advisor violated the safety of highly classified national security and anti-terrorism information.

Kerry’s response is troubling and hints at much larger issues – not the least of which is whether Kerry is capable of pursuing America’s vital national security interests over his own political ambitions.

It would be sloppy for Mr. Berger to accidentally remove top-secret documents. But media reports state that Berger hid the top-secret documents in his shorts and socks. It is almost unimaginable that this was the result of an “honest mistake” or even “sloppiness.”

Perhaps even more damning is the fact that on two different days, Mr. Berger reportedly stuffed different drafts of the same document into his underwear and socks. Perhaps, top-secret documents can accidentally get stuffed into one’s underwear once, but it seems impossible that the same documents, discussing the same issues, would find their way into Berger’s “unmentionables” a second time.

Among the documents Berger hid twice in his underwear was a memo assessing al Qaeda threats, terrorism risks, and Clinton’s handling of terrorism. Rehashing Clinton’s failures is not the point. What matters now is that we aggressively defeat al Qaeda and defend America. However, John Kerry’s sad response to these revelations brings into question his ability and fitness to lead and defend America.

From the public testimony that was given before the 9/11 Commission, it appears that the memo twice found in Berger’s underwear goes to the heart of whether we should treat terrorism as a “law enforcement” issue as John Kerry has repeatedly said, or whether it is a “national security” issue as George Bush has said. To Kerry, terrorists should be treated like liquor store robbers. To George Bush terrorists and their allies should be treated like sworn enemies of America. This difference will be key in the election debate.

What in this memo was so interesting to John Kerry’s security advisor? Why did Kerry’s key advisor try to dispose of several drafts of the same memo? Why was such sensitive information dealt with so recklessly? Perhaps, Kerry’s advisor realized that John Kerry is vulnerable to charges of repeating Clinton’s mistakes and of being soft on terrorism and soft on defense – some have said Kerry will outsource our national security to France and Germany. Perhaps, in an election year, this memo was simply too hot for John Kerry to handle and his friend and advisor was “sloppily” clearing a path for him.

Regardless, Kerry is more concerned about the timing of this matter than he is about the substance of it. This reveals that Kerry lacks the ability to lead America in the war on terror and that he cannot be trusted to defend America’s national security interests above all else.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org