So, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was "inadvertent." However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:

Lanny Breuer, Berger's attorney, said in a statement: "Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives."

Lanny Breuer.

Sigh. I thought we'd heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Well, I guess I should be grateful that it's at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive--"mistakes were made"--as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.

But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.

For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn't a "mistake." I don't know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn't.

If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.

But he's a Clinton administration official, part of "the most ethical administration in history," and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won't even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it's an old story, and the election's over, and he surely meant well, and isn't it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and "move on"?

The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her "right to die," will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:

Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?

Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.

[Update at 9:45 AM EST]

INDC Journal isn't happy, either.

I am totally boggled that he's going to get his clearance back in three years. Anybody who does something like that should NEVER have a clearance again, not even a Confidential.

I want to see the written plea deal.

Because it almost _has_ to include 'And you won't attempt to prosecute me with treason'.

Because if it _doesn't_, whooo boy.

"we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway."

This is getting old. In fact, it was old five years ago when Rush Limbaugh was saying it.

Everybody is outraged all the time. Republicans are outraged at what the Dems do, and Democrats are outraged at what the Republicans do. But this isn't sufficient, so now both sides have to get outraged because they just KNOW that the other side is hypocritical because it is not outraged about the same things.

So everybody is outraged. And hypocritical. Wow.

You miss the point, Tom. When the Democrats get outraged, the press gives them a megaphone. When the Republicans do, they are either ignored, or accused of being "partisan" by the same media.

Can somebody explain to me why this isn't worse than watergate?

Seriously.

We should be having congressional investigations on this, so that this is brought into the light of day (oops, I forgot, we are busy investigating old retired baseball players).

Questions I want answered (or at least asked under oath):

* What was written in the notes on the destroyed documents?

* Who wrote the notes on the destroyed documents?

* Who was SB talking to during the cover up activities? Who else was involved?

Actions I want taken:

* Permenent revokation of SB clearance.

Sandy Berger was a very mediocre National Security Advisor. That's been reported in Europe since the Yugoslavia bombing campaign.

Frankly it's not clear to me why Wen Ho Lee's treatment was so bad and this clown's so good. This guy was caught red handed mishandling classified documents and actively trying to deceive the government. The treatment of these two guys is a world apart - so much for US justice and equality.

If Sandy Berger was in ankle chains I bet the media would pay more attention.

I suppose in the end the ex national security advisor is in a position to do a lot of damage if he becomes disillusioned, so they treat him like a VIP even in court.

I suppose alternative is to keep him incommunicado and in solitary.

Kevin - Door #2 works for me.

Where's The Outrage?

I'm outraged. I think the problem is that these days there are so many outrages to choose from (and so many staunch defenders of indefensible behaviour) that it's hard to focus enough outrage to have any result.

Gee, Tom... you still don't get it. Wow.

"We know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway."

This is getting old. In fact, it was old five years ago when Rush Limbaugh was saying it.

Everybody is outraged all the time. Republicans are outraged at what the Dems do, and Democrats are outraged at what the Republicans do. But this isn't sufficient, so now both sides have to get outraged because they just KNOW that the other side is hypocritical because it is not outraged about the same things.

So everybody is outraged. And hypocritical. Wow."

What is hypocritical about being outraged at what is technically an act or Treason? This is not normal political dirty trickery, this goes over the line.

If you steal or destroy classified documents, be prepared to carry a jar of vasiline on you the rest of your life.

Rand,

It doesn't take extensive briefings, just the first one where they explain you can't destroy classified material yourself, but only by approved people using approved means.

Funny how this story, an honest to goodness crime with real national security implications (as in what was Sandy destroying?) has generated so little coverage as compared to the Wilson/Plame so called outing, a non-crime with zero national security implications.