While I acknowledge that something is amiss with regards to the non-prosecution of Sandy Berger, I've not made much of a big deal about it. In the back of my head, I've always suspected that he has been a very successful blackmailer. Tigerhawk's speculation mirrors my speculation:
My rank speculation is that Sandy Berger had information which would have made his trial even more painful for the Bush administration than for, well, Berger. I have no idea what that information would have been, except perhaps more detailed evidence that some Clintonite somewhere "warned" the Bush administration about al Qaeda or the specific tactics deployed on 9/11. Or perhaps Berger's defense would have required that the administration compromise information of current tactical or intelligence value, in which case the trial of Sandy Berger would have hurt the United States. Either way, it seems to me silly to complain about Libby's treatment compared to Berger's without knowing why we let Berger off with the equivalent of after-school detention.
The next question of course is, why don't we know? This is a mystery that begs for investigation by the best reporters in the Washington press corps. That our vaunted mainstream media has failed to uncover the story of Berger's absurd sentencing reflects very poorly on their ambition, their competence, or their objectivity.
Berger will go to his grave with the secrets intact, unless and until he is approached by the next Democrat president needing to deal dirt retroactively on Bush.
Recent Comments