Beldar wonders about the Hillary/Berger connection as well.

Do you really want this gang in charge of the country again, let alone national security?

Berger got a job? But didn't Bill White tell us Berger career was over, and his credibility ruined?

Although this proves Berger wasn't punished nearly enough, I think this will be what Instapundit refers to as an unforced error on the part of Hillary Clinton. Maybe she had a quid pro quo, but Berger is an albatross she just put around her neck. Now Republicans can point out that she hired a guy that brazenly breached national security during an investigation into the worst attack on civilians in US history. She can try and defend him, but why even go there?

And let's say she gets elected with Berger on her staff... Do you think the Democrats will hold both Congressional houses during her term? With Berger on her staff, it is an invitation to open Congressional hearings on what exactly he did, and what he was trying to cover up. After all, if the national archives is to be believed, they still have copies.

Well, maybe we don't want them back, but surprisingly Greenspan seems to like the Clintons, at least far as the economy is concerned.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012069.php

I guess Bill had discipline in everything else other than pants-control.

I think Hillary will be fine with regards to national security. At least she is clearly capable of extreme attention to detail, as compared to Bush who seems to be continually clueless if not downright delusional. I certainly have more confidence in her judgement if we do have to go to war with Iran. Unlike Bush who will bluster and prance on the stage and likely lead us into compounding the quagmire that is his gift to the next President.

Not that I like her or anything. More Hsu-namis are hereby implored.