You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
It's The Margin Notes, Stupid!
2004-07-23
From the New York Sun, edited for the money quotes:
In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger's "handwritten notes on the meeting paper" referring to "the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties."According to the Berger notes, "if he responds, we're blamed."

On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council's counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, 'no.' "

In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a "Predator" drone. Reports the commission: "In the memo's margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, 'I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.' "

In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.

It really doesn't matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission's report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly.He is a hardworking, warm man with a wonderful family, but his background as a trade lawyer and his dovish, legalistic and political instincts made him, in retrospect,the tragically wrong man to be making national security decisions for America in wartime.That Senator Kerry had Mr. Berger as a campaign foreign policy adviser even before the archives scandal is enough to raise doubts about the senator's judgment.
So, it may not be the draft documents Berger wanted lost, it may be the notes in the margin that he and others in the Clinton administration wrote. If they are like every other government document I've reviewed and commented on, there's a routing sheet or stamp you initial to show you've read it. The margin notes could be very revealing, which is why they had to be destroyed.
Posted by:Steve

#6  Previous to this Bergling, Mr. Berger was thought to be a likely choice for Kerry's Secretary of State.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-07-23 10:09:26 PM  

#5  I sincerely doubt that distancing himself from a pacifist leaning will be possible as this man made his career on pacifism and pulling the US out of Vietnam.
Posted by: GreatestJeneration   2004-07-23 4:25:21 PM  

#4  The fact that Kerry was using Berger as a foreign policy advisor does not bode well for the possibility of Kerry breaking from the generally pacifist leaning of the Clinton years. However if Kerry does not distance himself from the pacifist approach, he would be, as you say RM, risking the burial of his party.
Posted by: virginian   2004-07-23 3:54:23 PM  

#3  camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms
Ah ha! I believe the answer lies in hermitcally sealed mayo jar on the front porch of Funk and Wagners beachhouse.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-07-23 3:12:04 PM  

#2  I'd say that world events have made that impossible. Clinton and his team had a very difficult time with any decision involving the military, especially if there was going to be a real fight. My guess is that a Kerry team would be no different. People will see this, despite MSM efforts to cover their mistakes. If we are attacked again during a Kerry administration, then I think it will be the last Dem administration that runs this country for a long, long time.
Posted by: remote man   2004-07-23 3:07:57 PM  

#1  The article's characterization of Berger's approach to foreign policy in terms of simply walking away from every problem explains a lot about that administration. It is probably possible to get away with walking away or papering over problems for a 4-year term, but into the second term, the problems start to pile up to critical mass. But by late in the second term, the Clintonians were set in their ways and decided to just ride out problems like the USS Cole, and leave it for the next administration. The question is will a Kerry adminstration try the same trick, or has the lethal legacy of the Clinton years made that impossible?
Posted by: virginian   2004-07-23 2:51:38 PM  

00:00