One Cryptic Reference, One Less So

We have been wondering about possible motivations for the leak of the Sandy Berger investigation, and have previously suggested a connection to the 9/11 Commission itself. Support for this can be found in the report (as we had predicted).

One of Glenn Reynolds' many intrepid readers found what may be a cryptic reference to Sandy Berger in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Here is another reference that is a lot less cryptic, and might easily prompt many follow-up questions about documents, after-action reports, and Sandy Berger. From the footnotes on p. 482:

46. NSC email, Clarke to Kerrick,“Timeline,”Aug. 19, 1998; Samuel Berger interview (Jan. 14, 2004). We did not find documentation on the after-action review mentioned by Berger. On Vice Chairman Joseph Ralston’s mission in Pakistan, see William Cohen interview (Feb. 5, 2004). For speculation on tipping off the Taliban, see, e.g., Richard Clarke interview (Dec. 18, 2003).

And to what does footnote (46) refer? On p. 117, Chapter 4, we find this:

Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20–30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours. Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin. (46)

How about that? How many times have we heard Clinton say that he missed Bin Ladin by just a few hours? Yet the after-action report is missing, so the Commission relied on Sandy Berger's testimony.

At a minimum, this can be tied to the Berger leak. My guess is that someone would have asked about that puzzling footnote; once on the subject of Berger and missing after-action reports, the story of the criminal investigation could hardly be kept quiet. Hence, the timing of the Sandy Berger leak last Monday - rather than a Republican dirty trick, it was a pre-emptive leak by someone close to the commission so that the Sandy Berger circus would not distract from the public release of the 9/11 report. (As if!)

Last Tuesday, Josh Marshall was out of ideas, and could only imagine a malicious Administration leak. InstaPundit readers had other, and better, ideas.

Well, I'll know I am on to something if I don't see it in the Times tomorrow.

MORE: Ok, the Times might run a headline like "Bush Denies Knowledge of Footnotes", but that does have a certain "Dog Bites Man" quality.

UPDATE: Just to be clear - the news accounts have talked primarily about missing Millennium after-action reports, not the 1998 cruise missile attack after-action reports, and I suppose I could have emphasized that. But my point is, once people start asking the Commissioners about Sandy Berger and missing documents, an answer along the lines of "that's a matter of a criminal investigation" becomes almost inevitable, and very distracting.

NOTE: Very slightly revised at Mickey's prompting, and yes, I wonder what the real lede is, too.

Comments

[Barry D]

Where are the footnotes? In Sandy Berger's socks, of course.

[Tim]

Does this also help explain why Clinton knew of the investigation and is involved in Berger's public spin campaign -- and Kerry didn't and isn't?

[Brian O'Connell]

The after-action report that was the subject of Berger's interest at the National Archives concerned the US response to the Millenium terrorist threat.

The after-action report referred to in what you've quoted seems to refer to a different one reviewing the 1998 cruise missile attacks on bin Laden.

All the media reports of what Berger took only mention the Millenium after-action report and its drafts, though this doesn't rule out others.

[praktike]

Actually, I'm starting to wonder if this hasn't all been done to protect Pakistan. A bipartisan coverup, if you will.

[Kathy]

I would bet that it came out during Clinton's testimony as Berger and Lindsey were sitting right behind him.

[Gonzo]

Maybe the "leaks" were preemptive in another way. They've got us all focusing on the year 2000 celebration reports, when perhaps its this after-action report related to the 1998 missile strikes that was actually (and apparently, successfully) "disappeared" by Berger.

Hmmm.

[TM]

Brian - Millennium, 1998 cruise missile - what, are you deconstructing me?

Of course it is not the Millennium after-action report described in the media. But almost any questions people asked (where there any other problems with missing documents? Any problems with Sandy Berger?) would head towards "I can't comment - that is the subject of a criminal investigation."

[Deoxy]

My thoughts exactly Gonzo.

How many other things are "inadvertently" *cough*BULLSHIT*cough* missing? To use the Dem SOP (standard Operating Procedure), I don't know that documents weren't destroyed during the Clinton administration, but I think there should be an investigation immediately!

[Brian O'Connell]

TS: Apologies. My expectations caused me to misread what you're reporting here. My fault.

Of course there would have to be documentation on the 1998 after-action review. I guess the question becomes, does the National Archives have records of having had such documentation at one point? Someone with clearance ought to find out the answer.

[Simon]

We've had 2 enquiries in the UK (including the suicide of a senior weapons advisor under rather suspicious circumstances)what should have been answers to very serious concerns about the Iraq situation. Net Result: Whitewash and no accountability - it wasn't me...whatever your view on the legitimacy of the war ...for fuck sake somebody come out and be honest....

[HH]

Sandy is also cited (along with oh-so-credible Clinton) in their finding on the Sudanese offers of (or attempts to offer) bin Laden.

[jason]

unreal. what a skooch. meanwhile, we've got the story of sandy turning in his pants. lol.

[Forbes]

Points out another reason to "leak" about the missing documents--that there are many missing documents. But now it's subject to an investigation, so nobody is talking, and the storyline becomes the spin--just the way the NYTimes is covering it. Isn't that the Lanny Davis school of leaking--you get the story out under the most favorable light, and then spin like hell. Talk about honest mistake, inadvertence, highly respected, dedicated public servant--all kinds of distractions that have nothing to do with removing top secret documents from the National Archives--a crime.

Also, regarding speculation about why Clinton knew, but Kerry didn't--Bruce Lindsey was contacted by the National Archives IG? or someone early on to prompt the return of docs. Surely he told Clinton.

[TM]

No apology necessary, Brian, you caught me at my own game fair and square.

I am absolutely convinced that the minimum you can take away from this footnote story is that the leak may have been motivated by the commission, which would embarrass the NY Times and Terry McAuliffe, thereby making my day.

As to the maximum, well...

[michael ledeen]

a coupla nights ago CNN's crawl said that one of the missing documents referred to the 1993 WTC bombing. So there may be several...

[HH]

Attention TM: Go to my post on the matter linked above ("Intriguing info on Burglar")... turns out Burglar misled the commission on the U.S.' knowledge of bin Laden and terror in '96.

[HH]

Michael - Hmm... Bin Laden's connection to the '93 WTC attack is something Berger told the commission that the govt. knew nothing about in '96 when the Sudan is alleged to have attempted an offer of bin Laden to the govt.... I'm beginning to wonder if the much-discussed-at-Newsmax "offer" isn't a part of this.

[tibor]

I heard John Loftus say on the John Batchelor Show that some of the discarded materials may have related to US support for al Qaeda-linked groups fighting the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.

[Pat Henry]

Sir,

Can you make Josh Marshall, the uncritical, wink-and-nod, Cheerleader of DNC, to read your analysis? What will take for you to do that? You can reach him at talk@talkingpointsmemo.com.

Pat Henry

[scruzman]

What about the cover up of the terrorist bombing of Flight 800 around the same time? I read that Burgler didn't want a terrorist attack response from the Clinton's prior to the election and that some of the docs may have indicated said attack. Am I off base here?