Did Berger lose drafts or copies?

[AngryAmish]

I am confused. Some people are saying he took drafts of the Millenium review (with original notations from WH people. Some people are say he took copies - so there would be originals and no harm to his losing them. Well, which is it?

[redqueen]

1. Copies - where the hell is this draft crap coming from now?

Stupid reich-wingers... I think they're the Bu$h Party Loyalists are the only ones believing their lies at this point.

[spinbaby]

2. Copies of drafts

He evidentially made copies of early drafts of something he wrote in the first place.

[AngryAmish]

3. That is the first I heard of that

This is giving me a headache.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

4. My understanding is...

He thought he was taking copies but they were actually the originals he was looking at. But there was no harm either way, at least as far as losing the information, because the archives has copies of everything. It was not possible that Berger thought he was hiding information. It was only that he violated the archive rules by taking the originals. It would be like taking the original Constitution (except to a far, far lesser degree) -- the original of an important historical document would have been gone, but obviously the government would not come crashing down because of it -- since there are many, many copies of the Constitution all over the place.

ON EDIT: Well, now I don't know. The first three posts were not up when I replied. I wonder if this has to do with the different ways people use "copies" in the computer age? I mean if I have a letter or something, and I put it through a high-quality copier, the result is technically the "copy" and what I have is the "original," but if someone asked me how many copies of the letter I had, I would probably say "two" -- because I would include the original. Also, if I
type something and print it, that's called a "hard copy." If I print it 5 times, I have 5 "copies". Where is the original? Just the file on the computer. Still, I do think that Berger had taken the "originals" -- otherwise, why would the archives care?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

5. I did some research, and this is what I found:

Here are some snips from stories, along with my commentary...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20040722/ts_usatoday/bushbergerincidentveryserious

Berger, the subject of a Justice Department investigation since October, said he inadvertently took from the National Archives versions (emphasis mine - I don't know what this phrase means. Sounds like copies to me.) of a classified memo that critiqued the Clinton administration's intelligence and security efforts for the period just before the millennium celebrations in late 1999.

Berger also has acknowledged removing his own handwritten notes about classified documents, a violation of the National Archives' rules. Agents conducted searches at Berger's home and office in January and February for counterterrorism documents missing from the Archives.

Republicans say the inquiry raises questions about Berger's work as an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Some say Berger took the documents so they could be used by the Kerry campaign. (I don't understand this. Berger was NSA. He's not finding out anything he didn't already know. This is all his own work he's reviewing. Not sure how the document could be used by Kerry's campaign. :shrug:)

Some of the classified documents removed from the Archives were "inadvertently" discarded, Berger has said. Other copies of the material still exist (emphasis mine, again), and there is no indication that Berger's action affected the commission's investigation, a panel spokesman has said.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040722/ap_on_go_co/sept_11_berger_probe_22

Berger was reviewing the materials in 2003 to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the Sept. 11 commission. In a statement Tuesday, Berger said he made "an honest mistake" but was innocent of any wrongdoing. Berger has said he must have discarded the missing documents.

Former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire said he understands the documents involved are copies and that the originals are available, adding, "I have known Sandy Berger for a long time and I find it very difficult to ascribe any sinister motive for what he did." (That sounds good for Berger. So they were copies according to Rudman.)


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040721/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_attacks_berger_040721143142

(Berger) has said he returned all his handwritten notes and some classified documents he had found in his office, but that he could not find two or three copies of an intelligence report surrounding terrorist plots to disrupt millennium celebrations in 1999.

A source close to Berger told AFP the original intelligence report has been broadly circulated in government circles and that the September 11 commission has also reviewed it, and stressed that Berger inadvertently removed the report with other notes he'd made. (I think lots of things that are technically "classified" are not all that secret or serious. I mean, you may know lots of things about the company you work for that are technically secret, proprietary bits of information, but no one is really that secretive about it. I might know how much my company pays for coffee service, but if I discussed it with a friend on a public bus, no one would care. I think in government many things are classified that by this point would be considered obsolete information. It's not all like the nuclear launch codes -- or outing Valerie Plame.)

The FBI searched Berger's home in January, but he has not been interviewed by FBI agents (That doesn't sound to me like the FBI thinks it is very serious.), although he remains the subject of an investigation, the source said.

Clinton said Wednesday: "I believe his explanation.

"He did a fabulous job against terrorism. All of those records were documented, and the ones in question involved what we did leading up to the millennium, where we had no terrorist incidents and prevented a lot of them," Clinton told CNN. (Right. So what would Berger have to hide? Clinton and Berger prevented attacks. Berger is the one who warned Bush/Rice about terrorism and OBL the first day on the job.)

[RememberTheCoup]

6. I'm still confused.

Do the National Archives get original documents or do they get copies? I think the important point is that Sandy Berger was not and could not have been trying to hide or lose information because there were copies of everything. But I think that point is getting lost in the confusion over the details, and that's too bad. I'm still trying to make heads or tails of this myself, and the press is not helping clarify things.