« "Yuh-huh"/"Uh-huh" versus "Nuh-uh"/"Uh-uh" | Main | Political foods »

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Why didn't Bill tell John about Sandy's pants?

The Denver Post apparently aspires to emulate the New York Times in pumping out pro-Democratic Party spin — even if it means burying its own genuine international scoops.  Today's article entitled "Clinton defends aid during Denver book stop; former president also takes a swipe at Bush" has already been dropped into the "more local news headlines" category on the Post's website. 

The article leads with the standard spin questioning the timing of the disclosure of the ongoing investigation of former Clinton NSA Sandy Berger; then detours into a few paragraphs about nasty Dubya letting the multinational corporations lay waste to national forests; and only then reveals this genuinely astonishing and eminently newsworthy fact (italics mine):

Clinton said he has known about the federal probe of Berger's actions for several months, calling this week's news a "nonstory."

Even if one accepts at face value the claims by Berger and the Kerry campaign that Kerry only learned of the investigation this week — immediately prior to Berger's resignation as a Kerry senior foreign policy advisor — even though the investigation began last October, one has to wonder:

      Why didn't Bill Clinton give John Kerry a heads-up on this affair?

I suspect the answer can be given in one word, and one date:  Hillary 2008.

As part of the aforementioned spin, the Post also reports (ellipsis in original):

We were all laughing about it on the way over here," the former president said of the investigation into Samuel "Sandy" Berger on classified terrorism documents missing from the National Archives. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe. But ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers."

One wonders if Slick Willie and his droogs were only laughing about Sloppy Sandy's socks and pants — or if they were also giggling about the spectacle of Sen. Treebeard with egg on his face.

Finally, I just now got around to reading The New Yorker's July 25-issue article on Kerry's foreign policy philosophy — ironically entitled "Damage Control" — which masterfully attempts to make into a virtue the fact that, other than calling in the UN and the international community for help, Kerry hasn't got a plan for how to do the Iraq reconstruction differently or better than Dubya.  The nearly-concealed admission includes this delicious and timely paragraph (italics mine):

Throughout the spring and early summer—with exposés of Bush’s rush to war stacking the best-seller lists, while the September 11th commission hearings filled television screens, alongside reports of rampant insurrection in Iraq and the irreparable disgrace of Americans torturing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison—Kerry seemed to be measuring out his comments on the war with deliberate reserve. “A few months ago,” Richard Holbrooke said to me, “I couldn’t go down the street in New York or Washington without people stopping me and asking, ‘Why isn’t he speaking out more clearly on Iraq?’” But Holbrooke, who is considered a leading contender for the post of Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration, thought that Kerry had just the right strategy. “We are in the throes of the greatest crisis since Vietnam and maybe even worse. Kerry has to allow events to unfold. But he should not be expected to lay out a plan significantly more detailed than he has, because it’s not necessary at this point. Everyone knows he would do it differently.”  Sandy Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national-security adviser and who is now advising Kerry, agreed, and he went further. “There are no silver bullets on Iraq,” he said. “So if people are waiting for John Kerry to say, ‘The answer is Rosebud,’ there is no Rosebud.”

Of course, if you've seen the end of Citizen Kane, you know what happened to "Rosebud."  One wonders — why did that particular imagery pop into former NSA Berger's head?  What has been crackling on the fires of the Berger Family furnace?  And did it come from the National Archives via his socks?

Posted by Beldar at 05:45 PM in Current Affairs, Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Why didn't Bill tell John about Sandy's pants? and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


The comments to this entry are closed.