Hsus And Socks
You can tell the man who boozes,
by the company he chooses ...
and the pig got up and slowly walked away.
The poem by Clarke Van Ness warns people that they will be judged by the actions of those with whom they choose to associate -- and even a pig has enough sense to walk away from disaster. Hillary Clinton has a big problem with her associates, and it's self-inflicted. Lost in the Norman Hsu shuffle, the news that Hillary has asked former Clinton national-security adviser Sandy Berger to join her campaign should cause even more questions about her judgment and her ethics:
The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).
Berger didn't just commit some technical violation, either. He went to the National Archives on behalf of Bill Clinton as part of the investigation of the 9/11 attacks. While there, he deliberately hid highly classified material in his socks to avoid detection and dropped them under a trailer on a break. Later, he retrieved the material and took it home, and wound up destroying the evidence while his nation tried to find as much material on Clinton-era counterterrorism efforts in order to better protect ourselves in the future.
Given that despicable behavior, what political candidates would ever associate themselves with Berger again? Even John Kerry dumped Berger when the crime came to light. He knew better than to associate himself with someone who obstructed an investigation into the worst attack on American soil -- a man who may have covered up actions which would have proven embarrassing to Bill Clinton, and a major stumbling block to the presidential aspirations of his wife.
We now have two examples of Hillary Clinton associating herself with people of low character and criminal behavior. Unlike the pig in the song, Hillary not only has not removed herself from the gutter, she seems to be encouraging the ethically challenged to join her there. How many more of these characters will we discover in the Hillary campaign? How many more will the Democrats need to see before ending the sleaze train?
Richard Miniter has more personal recollections of Berger's efforts to keep the Clinton errors quiet. He also ends with a very pertinent question:
My informed sources suggest that what Berger destroyed were copies of the Millennium After-Action Review, a binder-sized report prepared by Richard Clarke in 2000—a year and half before the 9-11 attacks. The review made a series of recommendations for a tougher stance against bin Laden and terrorism. There are 13 or more copies of this report. But only one contains hand-written notes by President Bill Clinton. Apparently, in the margin beside the recommendations, Bill Clinton wrote NO, NO, NO next to many of the tougher policy proposals. ...Did she bring him aboard to reward him for his criminal destruction of classified material? Or did she sign him up because of his stellar record in fighting bin Laden in the late 1990s?/blockquote>
UPDATE: I almost forgot Peyton's sock! In fact, I did forget it until Peyton sent me a reminder...
Posted by Ed Morrissey on September 13, 2007 10:02 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (31)
Posted by James Balmer | September 13, 2007 10:34 AM
Or did she bring him aboard because he didn't destroy them?
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 13, 2007 10:35 AM
I'm still trying to wrap myself around the stupidity of our National Archives providing anyone with an original copy of anything. It's like me walking up and wanting to examine the Constitution -- and they give me the original.
Posted by J. Ewing | September 13, 2007 10:37 AM
Please don't bash Hillary too badly, you might accidentally prevent her from being the nominee. Why not just hold most of this ammunition until she IS the nominee? You don't want to have to start all over finding dirt on Obama or Edwards, do you? Or have Al Gore come charging in on his white horse, spewing greenhouse gasses everywhere?
Posted by quickjustice | September 13, 2007 10:43 AM
You didn't expect Burglar's loyalty to the Clintons to go unrewarded, did you Ed?
"Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."
-Old Chinese Proverb
Posted by Jazz | September 13, 2007 10:52 AM
How many more of these characters will we discover in the Hillary campaign? How many more will the Democrats need to see before ending the sleaze train?
I'm afraid Hillary is pretty much teflon in the Democratic Party community and much of the progressive middle. You can throw anything you want, but getting anything to stick looks futile. Conversely, she already knows that pretty much nobody who's ever so much as rubbed elbows with a Republican would vote for her anyway, so I'm sure her team feels as if she has nothing to lose.
It's hard to imagine anything that would stop her from getting the nomination. Her team's biggest concern at this point is hoping that Rudy G. doesn't get the GOP nomination. He's the one person that could assure her defeat and a Republican in the White House in the 08 election. Fortunately for them, the Republican base appears ready to have their own "Tin Cup Moment" and will make sure Rudy's candidacy gets derailed before he gets within smelling distance of the nomination.
It's going to be an interesting, if horribly depressing election. But bringing up things like this does not, to my view at least, change much. I imagine you could put up video showing Hillary loading live kittens into an incinerator and she'd get the nomination.
Can she win the whole thing? I don't know. Even if she can it will be another incredibly close election. Unless, of course, Rudy somehow gets the nomination in which case the Democrats should just start saving their money for 2012 because they'll have lost this one before it starts.
Posted by Bennett | September 13, 2007 11:11 AM
I think this is more a failure of imagination on the Senator's part. She's not a particularly innovative thinker and surrounding herself with Bill's old crew is familiar and comfortable. Most of all, though, these people will not challenge or confront her about anything.
And I disagree that the Senator wears teflon. I think it's that there is already so much dirt stuck on her we can't see any new spots. This is her crowning achievement. We have zero expectations of her and she always delivers.
Posted by Jon Prichard | September 13, 2007 11:11 AM
These people are heroes to the Democrat party. By and large they don't consider hiring these folks as lying with dogs. To Democrats Sandy Berger is the truest of patriots.
Posted by Silvio Canto, Jr. | September 13, 2007 11:13 AM
Clinton's actions require "the willing suspension of disbelief."
Posted by flenser | September 13, 2007 11:20 AM
Her team's biggest concern at this point is hoping that Rudy G. doesn't get the GOP nomination. He's the one person that could assure her defeat and a Republican in the White House in the 08 election.
If the drag queen is the GOP nominee, we'll go down to such a defeat that there may not be a Republican party left afterwards.
I'm sure the Dems are praying that the GOP runs this turkey.
In New York, the place which Rudy supposedly "saved", Clinton beats him like a rented mule.
Posted by KJBtruth | September 13, 2007 11:21 AM
This is one area I was particularly outraged about.
But not about Sandy Bergler. I expect this type of behavior and worse from the Clintonistas. Why didn't Bush and the Justice Dept. go after this full on? Why?
Bush and his Justice Dept. let Berger slide with a smack on the wrist, and a gentle scolding.
Why?
I am generally not a conspiracy theorist, but this smells.
Posted by Sue | September 13, 2007 11:22 AM
While at the dentist yesterday morning I spied the Newsweek rag and its front page portrayal of Hillary. All the women in the reception area, including myself, posited that they couldn't stand her and would not vote for her. One of the younger gals said she didn't "know" exactly why she disliked Hillary, but she did and that was enough for her. She may win and then someone's God help us, but at the moment I not happy with all of the candidates and I have expressed and been expressed to the same sentiment. The only saving grace I see in the near future is that this is 2007-2008 and not 1992-1996. The Internet is a great tool and if used properly, the majority of "adults" will be the best informed voters in history.
Posted by RD | September 13, 2007 11:23 AM
It was inevitable that Hillary would rehabilitate the Berg[l]er. I have been expecting it and waiting for it to happen although I thought it would not be until she was safely in office. They owe the Berg[l]er big time and all their henchmen know it-he sacrificed his reputation and integrity (if he had any to begin with) for them and the usual money payouts would not be sufficient. He needed to be restored, as a sign of their loyalty, to all of those who have been their loyal defenders and cover up specialists and who have also sacrificed a lot of their reputations and integrity (as they understand it) as they have followed the Clinton from scandal to scandal with shovel and broom. May they all pay the price of such blind and sycophantic loyalty.
Posted by LaMano | September 13, 2007 11:30 AM
We need another Clinton presidency like we need another 9/11. Just ask Vince Foster ..... ooops ... I guess we can't do that.
The Office of the President was horribly tarnished by an impeached, corrupt, self-absorbed, womanizing (to put it nicely) president.
Hillary the corrupt, socialistic prevaricator would be worse.
Posted by AnotherOpinion | September 13, 2007 11:33 AM
Didn't Berger stuff documents down his pants? That seems so much more Clintonesque.
Isn't there still some ongoing court case involving some guy who hosted a gala for Hillary for which the total "donation" was misreported?
And I still think that there are more sinister ways of interpreting Hillary giving Hsu's money back to the individuals. It's tough though to decide between sinister and stupid.
Posted by LaMano | September 13, 2007 11:39 AM
Silvio, I like it.
When I see her, as in the Petreaus hearings this week, she comes across as a pathetic actress in a horrible 'B' movie delivering lines absent any conviction. She can't even fake it. It's a bad show. Too bad I can't walk out and get my money back.
Posted by JAT | September 13, 2007 11:40 AM
With the National Archives set to release Ms. Clinton's White House records by the end of this year, Ms. Clinton needed a good "sock-man" to "review" what may be released.
Sandy is the bag-man for the Clintonistas!
Posted by swabjockey05 | September 13, 2007 11:46 AM
I work in a scif. If I got caught walking out with classified documents, the least of my worries would be how many years I was going to be spending in Leavenworth making little ones out of big ones...(other worries: How to stockpile plenty of "soap-on-a- rope")
Why is the Bergler still free as a bird?
Posted by jim | September 13, 2007 11:59 AM
Hsus and Socks...nice.
How about, "I'll pay you Hsusday for a Berger today".
Posted by LCDR M | September 13, 2007 12:11 PM
I hear you Swabjockey! Like you, I handle classified material (although Top Secret is far lower than the Code word level documents he took) and if I so much as "accidently" took home even only Secret material, I would be doing some serious time in Leavenworth. How is Berger's crime only a misdemeanor??? I don't care so much about the politics involved but I do care that someone willfully violated national security protocols and got a slap on the wrist. Heck, Libby ended up getting sentenced more harshly for doing something far less damaging to the country.
Posted by cali_sun | September 13, 2007 1:03 PM
Spot on! Proverb states: "By the company you keep, will I determine your character."! This should be clear anough.
Posted by Human Being | September 13, 2007 1:04 PM
Oh, Bravo Jim!
Posted by viking01 | September 13, 2007 1:23 PM
From the headline I thought it was about Socks the Cat having nearly gotten the Arkancide rubout.
The famous feline that Slick gave to secretary Betty Currie in addition to Monica's various gifts he needed for Currie to "hide" for him before the famous blue dress made the non-denial denial useless. Allegedly Socks the Cat still lives unlike Slick's dog Buddy. Poor Buddy got greased in Chappaqua shortly after the Clintoons, "nearly bankrupted" by their impeachment defense, shafted attorney Bob Bennett and bought a mansion there.
Posted by Jazz | September 13, 2007 1:24 PM
If the drag queen is the GOP nominee, we'll go down to such a defeat that there may not be a Republican party left afterwards.
I'm sure the Dems are praying that the GOP runs this turkey.
In New York, the place which Rudy supposedly "saved", Clinton beats him like a rented mule.
And this is the Tin Cup Moment by definition. Rudy is immensely popular in New York. If there is anyone that can take New York away from Hillary in a national campaign, it's him. Regardless of current national trends running against Republicans, there is still one truth. For Hillary or any other Democrat to win the White House, they have to take *both* California and New York. (And then go on to win some key battleground states in play.) If she fails to take them both, the election is over and (Insert GOP Candidate Name Here) wins it walking away.
The Republicans don't have anyone else in play that could touch either California or New York.
Tin Cup: As the character Romeo (played so wonderfully by Cheech Marin) says to Kevin Costner, "Man... you'd bury yourself alive just to prove you could handle the shovel."
One of the great hopes the Democrats have in 08 is that the Republicans will torpedo one of the only guys who could virutally assure them a win.
Posted by JM Hanes | September 13, 2007 1:49 PM
Hillary dredges up Sandy Berger & Madelaine Albright; Obama raises Zbigniew Brzezinski from the dead. So much for the audacity of hope!
Posted by burt | September 13, 2007 4:37 PM
Berger's security crime is orders of magnitude more serious than all the felonies Clinton and Hsu together have been accused of. He should be in prison for the rest of his like as a minimum.
Unfortunately I agree with Jazz about the Teflon thing.
Swabjockey05, we have some similar work experience. We seem to be in full agreement.
LCDR M, It is a misdemeanor because he is a prominent Democrat. John Deutch repeatedly pilfered special compartmented information and he didn't even get a misdemeanor.
Posted by Keemo | September 13, 2007 5:39 PM
This is one area I was particularly outraged about.
But not about Sandy Bergler. I expect this type of behavior and worse from the Clintonistas. Why didn't Bush and the Justice Dept. go after this full on? Why?
Bush and his Justice Dept. let Berger slide with a smack on the wrist, and a gentle scolding.
Why?
Posted by KJBtruth | September 13, 2007 11:21 AM
This is the very thing that makes my skin crawl; why didn't Bush give this crime it's proper treatment.. Why is Berger "above the laws" that apply to the rest of us.. The rule of law either is absolute or it is a joke for sale. Berger; his crime, and his favorable pardon have made a mockery of our application of "rule of law".
Clinton needed to reward Berger with this position on her team; plain and simple.. My 15 year old nailed this theory immediately upon hearing this story. Hillary is not going about fooling anybody, she is shoving it right down our throats.
Posted by Eric | September 13, 2007 5:50 PM
swabjockey05
I work in a scif.
Eric
What is a scif?
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs | September 13, 2007 8:53 PM
Eric
It's a place/facility for storing and managing highly classified material. If you don't know about the subject, it's because you do not have the security clearances to know about it.
CHeers
Posted by RD | September 13, 2007 11:49 PM
I have been thinking about the maladroit bungling Berg[l]er and wonder if we really want such a bumbler on the next National Security team? Even the former President Clinton laughed when he heard about Sandy and said that everyone knew what a careless, sloppy feller good ol' Sandy was-it was a careless accident. Do we really need someone so careless handling our secrets? Sounds like they were left carelessly on his desk (stacks of secrets scattered about) for even the cleaning crew to check out.
Posted by swabjockey05 | September 15, 2007 6:11 AM
Burt. My last "poly" had me sweating bullets (from innocent mistakes I had made) I considered the "soap on a rope" investment at least once!
...and then you have the despicable actions admitted to by the Bergler. Only thing worse than a coward is a corrupt coward. If this coward admits to stuffing documents into his socks...what the Hell else was he up to...and why?
I was buying soap on a rope for an innocent mistake (verifiable: no compromise)…and this guy’s walking around fat dumb and happy? For intentional acts…? Doesn't make sense. Where are the "truoofers" when you need 'em?
Posted by burt | September 15, 2007 8:12 AM
Swabjockey05, here are a couple of anecdotes.
LBJ read a document on the white house lawn. A news photographer took a picture of him and published it (WaPo?). The document was open and in the corner a common codeword could be read in a good reproduction of the photograph. Hopefully, this was all that was compromised. All documents with this codeword had to be reissued with a new codeword, an expensive and time consuming task.
When Clinton came to Washington he demonstrated singular contempt for national security, but his national security staff was fully staffed much quicker than those of other Presidents. He accomplished this feat by reading in many of his cronies to the whole shooting match without any background investigation at all.
Clinton was known for not paying attention and not asking a single question at his daily intelligence brief.