THE VALERIE PLAME AFFAIR

:East Valley Tribune;

:Jul 31, 2005;

:Perspective;

:100

Rove, Berger cases hardly have resemblance

THE VALERIE PLAME AFFAIR

SAM COPPERSMITH COMMENTARY Sam Coppersmith, Democratic party activist and former member of the U.S. House, can be reached at sam@cgson.com.

    An anonymous angry Republican wrote in response to my column two weeks ago about Karl Rove and his disclosure of the covert CIA agent’s identity by saying, basically, "Nyah, nyah, what about Sandy Berger?"

    So let’s recall how Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, violated rules on handling classified information — and it’s worth recalling, if only for the story’s weirdness.

    In 2003, to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Berger went to the National Archives Annex to review classified documents from his time in office. Berger removed five copies of classified documents, hiding them in his briefcase, jacket, and (most strangely) his pants, and later destroyed three of the copies at his office. He also took his handwritten notes with him, which also violated classified information rules. Berger returned his notes, along with two copies, to Archives staff after they confronted him, but initially denied having destroyed the other three copies.

    Even without the hidingsecret-documents-in-hispants part, Berger’s behavior was bizarre and pointless. Berger received only copies and never had the originals; anyway, as that’s how a bureaucracy functions, there were other copies anyway. He also forgot that everyone working in the classified Archives facility is monitored, and that employees kept track of each piece of paper he touched, and thus had an exact paper trail of Berger’s violations.

    Berger’s initial stonewall crumbled and, faced with the evidence, he admitted his fault, pled guilty to a misdemeanor, and took his punishment, which included a $10,000 fine and revocation of his security clearance for three years. But he did take his medicine.

    You didn’t get orchestrated media attacks on the Archives employees as secret Republicans out to embarrass anyone associated with the Clinton administration, or pundits claiming that the copies Berger took really weren’t classified, or planning Senate hearings to argue that they shouldn’t have been classified originally.

    You didn’t have the liberal equivalent of The Wall Street Journal editorial page arguing that by destroying the extra copies Berger was really acting in the national interest by reducing paperwork, for which he should get an award.

    I certainly could argue that what Berger did wasn’t as serious as what Karl Rove and Lewis Libby did in leaking the covert CIA agent’s name — which would let anyone with access to Google track her back to any foreigners she had worked with or to any current CIA activities still using the "Boston consulting firm" she used as cover. Berger destroyed copies of documents; as the originals and other copies of the documents still existed, the three destroyed copies were easily replaced and no information was lost. Berger also didn’t leak the document to selected members of the media, putting classified information into public circulation.

    So even if what Rove and Libby did was arguably worse than Berger’s bizarre behavior, I’d settle if they settled for the same plea agreement as Berger. If Rove and Libby each admit fault, pay a $10,000 fine, and lose their security clearances for three years, we’ll call it even. But of course, we won’t; rather than ever admit a mistake, much less pay the price for a mistake, we instead get the usual Rove Formula: Deny, delay, distract, and demonize.

    Maybe the CIA agent’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, is a selfimportant, self-promoting, blowhard — but that’s hardly a valid criticism from supporters of J.D. Hayworth. And ultimately, the argument shouldn’t be over personalities, but rather over whether Iraq really was "reconstituting" its nuclear programs and seeking to purchase uranium from Niger — and on the substance (does anyone still care about substance?), Joe Wilson was right and the Bush administration was wrong.

    Maybe Wilson was lucky, but he was right — and the Bush administration could have argued its case against Wilson’s conclusions without ever mentioning his wife’s name.

    Remember when you could fight a political battle without needing to smear the guy’s wife? That used to be off limits; no more. Maybe we shouldn’t worry so much about the effects of Grand Theft Auto on teenagers, and more about the effects of Karl Rove on adults.

    -