The NY Times is still trying to wish it away, the WaPo is treating it seriously -- as if they were scared, a partisan might say. Thankfully the blogosphere is on the story. Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan are keeping important points top and center (CNN says he did indeed stuff papers down his socks).
And NED bless Hugh Hewitt! In The Gap, he compares the missing drafts to 18 1/2 minutes of audio that President Nixon couldn't explain away:
As any lawyer who has ever argued over the contents of a brief knows, the stuff that gets left out can be the most telling material of all--indicative of prejudices and priorities, sensitivities and credibility. Berger's sticky fingers have left a gap in the record of the Clinton administration's response to the growing threat posed by al Qaeda. Unless other files exist with all the same drafts and handwritten notes that Berger destroyed, we will never be able to conclude whether Berger's actions were simply another display of fecklessness and recklessness on an issue of national security, or an attempt to bleach the record of Clinton-era malpractice on matters of terror.Washington has had to judge gaps in the record before. "[A] few minutes missing from a non-subpoenaed tape hardly seemed worth a second thought," Richard Nixon wrote in his memoir of his reaction on first learning that Rose Mary Woods had deleted a portion of the famous tapes. Nixon would conclude "most people think that my inability to explain the 18 and 1/2-minute gap is the most unbelievable and insulting part of the whole of Watergate." Imaginations ran wild, and Nixon's credibility never recovered.
Here's why it matters: the Democratic Party has not had a President in office in the last 40 years who could be described as serious about defense.
-- President Carter remains proud that he never deployed US troops (even as our hostages were held and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan).
-- President Clinton balanced the budget (yaayy!) with draconian cuts on military spending (boo!) Without the Berger story, that appears a legitimate choice "I picked butter over guns." Yet having his NSA called into question, while he laughs about it bolsters my point.
Forty years without a serious-on-defense Democrat in the White House. It sounds biblical. Will Senator Kerry break the trend if he gets the chance? Sadly, no. He voted for the war but against funding the troops and reconstruction; he fought bravely for his country, then came home to publicly disparage the efforts and his comrades-in-arms; then he threw his medals away, or somebody's, or ribbons, or his Publishers' Clearinghouse Entry, or something...
The Democrats don't have to clone GOP policy but they do have to be serious. They are not.
Posted by jk at July 22, 2004 09:29 AMI beleive every president is serious about defense, it comes with the job. Exercising the power of the US military is not a litmus test for seriousness on the issue of defense. Keep in mind that Bush invaded Iraq so successfully with Bill Clinton's military. Bush and Rumsfeld's changes had not had time to take effect. Reagan pummled Carter over his cutting of the B-1 budget, yet Carter new of the existence of stealth technology and the development of the B-2 which Reagan did not. Military spending cuts began in earnest under Bush Sr. - I was working for a defense contractor at the time and had a front row seat. Bush did not enter office serious about defense, or about any international issue, events forced his hand.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 22, 2004 12:38 PMI had a hunch you might question my assertion, Silence. It's admittedly audacious but I will stand by it.
Presidents have priorities. Perhaps Bush pere wasn't "serious about Women's rights" or perhaps Reagan "wasn't serious about preserving wetlands" I don't know.
But it does not seem a stretch to question Presidents Clinton and Carter's seriousness about defense. Clinton said "I loathe the military," avoided the draft for himself and cut spending deeply.
It is harder to make the claim about Carter with his admirable military service. But the record is not good. A muscular military presence perhaps did not comport with his belief system, but I am hardly alone in suggesting he was an overly dovish Commander-in-Chief. In addition to the Iranian hostage crisis and Afghanistan, he lost much of Latin America, sub-rosa to Communism.
President Clinton was their shot at redemption -- even with his tragic "I loathe the military" comment -- and I dare say he lost his shot at it with Trousergate.
I'm curious what Silence believes IS a valid measure of a President's "seriousness" about national defense. I have to dispute your recollection that "Bush did not enter office serious about defense." One of the major elements of his 2000 campaign was restoring the strength and honor of the US military. As for the historically successful "invasion" of Iraq with "Bill Clinton's military," you may recall that stocks of smart bombs, cruise missiles, and even small arms rounds were dangerously low when Bill and Hill left town. Restocking our armories was a contributing factor in delaying the Iraq operation.
Posted by: johngalt at July 26, 2004 04:16 PM