Why Trousergate Matters

Nobody I saw on any talking-head show last night would confidently assert that this imbroglio has ramifications in November. I am not quite so shy.

Democrats post-Nunn have vacillated between disregard and contempt for the military and security of the US. I think the WSJ Ed Page nails it:

OpinionJournal - Featured Article (free site):
We'll grant that visions of a former National Security Adviser stuffing classified documents down his trousers or socks makes for good copy. But count us more interested in learning what's in the documents themselves than in where on his person Sandy Berger may have put them when he was sneaking them out of the National Archives.

For the evidence suggests that the missing material cuts to the heart of the choice offered in this election: Whether America treats terrorism as a problem of law enforcement or an act of war.

Can we afford to return to an administration that will treat terrorism as law-enforcement? Can we trust a party that -- so far -- seems willing to defend cavalier treatment of classified documents?

This story, like Mr. Berger's trousers "has legs!"

UPDATE: Scott at pstupidonymous is subject to classified document procedures at his work, and effectively refutes the "inadvertent" defense.

Posted by jk at July 21, 2004 08:13 AM