Some thoughts on the Berger issue from a few readers:
1. "I read one reliable report (cant remember where) that said that the National Archives staff, when they first found out that Berger was pilfering called first of all--guess who--Bruce Lindsay, apparently to try to iron out the little difficulty informally. Say what? What did the Clintonista flack/lawyer have to do with it?"
2. "Aside from Clintons wonderfully nostalgic (imagine thickened Arkansan drawl) we were all laughing about it response, you get Lindsay . . . and then Joe Lockhart and Lanny Davis--and Sandy Berger and his lawyers, and the Kerry campaign, and Daschle and crew--hit the spin zone. America is reminded once again to pay very close lawyerly attention to each phrase being uttered by all concerned in this professional operation, so I note a few points: ne archive staffer told agents that Berger also placed something in his socks. This drew a "sharp response" from Lanny Davis (how did he get involved?):
I suggest that person is lying. And if that person has the guts, lets see who it is who made the comment that Sandy Berger stuffed something into his socks. This sharp response, I note, nowhere denies that Berger stuffed anything into his socks. Lets start parsing again!"
3. "I have a question. Why did the Kerry camp just learn about this two days ago, when it became public? Hasnt Berger known about it for months? Why isnt the media pursuing that story? What does this say about Kerry?"
4. "I heard David Gergen defend Berger by saying this is more innocent than it looks. Some defense!
5. "Why is the timing of this leak an important issue? Why is it assumed to be a leak, why couldnt it be the result of good investigative reporting? I dont get it. I wish some more sensible people--isnt there anyone out there not biased?--would start talking about this."