Sixteen Words vs. Missing Documents...
It has been revealed today that Sandy Berger, former National Security advisor to "Commander in Briefs" Bill Kintoon, is under investigation for allegedly stealing documents from the National Archive that should have been given to the 9/11 Commission. One can only make assumptions about what might have been in those documents: what Clinton knew and when he knew it vis-a-vis Al'Qaeda, Iraqi nuclear news, faulty intellegence reports, etc, etc.  For all I know, it was Hilary's secret chocolate-chip cookie recipe, but I doubt it.
 
Berger's defense, thus far, is that he "might have inadvertantly stuck these papers in his pocket while doing research for the Commission". I'm assuming that these documents were standard 8' x11 1/2" pieces of paper, boredered by red and white stripes, and market "SECRET" or something like. "Inadvertantly" is the incorrect adverb.
 
I'd like to give Berger the benefit of the doubt, but he's tainted by association with the Clintons. Just like billing files were "inadvertantly" misplaced in the White House residence, or 900 FBI dossiers "inadvertantly" wound up in the hands of an ex-bar bouncer that no one will admit to hiring, or how Janet Reno "inadvertantly" ordered the incineration of 80 Christians in Texas, the word rings hollow when used by these people. If I had to bet, I'd say Berger was attemptng to hide evidence, in the least, and re-write history, in the extreme. I say re-write history, because as Orwell once wrote "If the document does not exist, and the only place an event can actually be recorded is in human memory, and if memory can be shaped, directed and controlled, who is to say 'This happened, when?'" It's part and parcel of debating the meaning of "IS" , conveniently forgetting things 58 times under oath, and excusing a bald-faced lie as an excercise in "compartmentalization".
 
On the other hand, democrats are roasting GW Bush (again) over the infamous 16 words. They of course neglect that even if the 16 words had never been uttered the case for war with Iraq was easily defensible on it's merits solely.  The difference, however, is this: Bush did in fact utter those 16 words, and whether they are true, a lie, or taken out of context, he must defend them. The record of their utterance exists and people remember he said them. They are not conveniently buried in an archive that the general public will never have access to and they cannot "inadvertantly" be stolen, hidden or destroyed. History, in this case, cannot be re-written.
 
One wonders just what Sandy Berger would have done with those papers once he checked his pants pockets before putting them in the wash? Would they have been returned? Would theyhave been shredded? Would they have wound up in his cat's litter box? One place they definitely WOULD NOT have been is in front fo the 9/11 Commission, where they belonged.
 
I hope Sandy swings and I hope that before he takes the tumble, he exposes the rest of his cohorts for the despicable human beings they are.