Talk:Sandy Berger

message: I'm just passing by here, but I just fixed what I think a serious violation in the intro summary. The body of the article and actual charges support the case that copies of information were taken out of the classified archives and later disposed of, and also presents the notable controversy and speculation that original documents could also have been taken/destroyed. The previous summary said "theft and subsequent destruction of classified documents from the National Archives in Washington" which to my ears clearly implies removal and destruction of the documents themselves, as opposed to the radically different breach of mishandling copies of classified documents. Presenting the notable controversy and speculation in the body of the article is appropriate, but I think it a pretty serious Wikipedia violation to implicitly present the unsupported speculative case as fact in the intro. Hopefully my edit (I forgot to log in when I did it) to the intro informs the reader clearly on both issues and satisfies everyone. Alsee 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supported case VS notable speculation

message: "Some suggested that Berger's removal of the documents constituted theft and moreover had serious national security implications. Also, some have voiced suspicion about the timing of the leak of the investigation, suggesting it might have been intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 Commission report later that week and the Democratic National Convention the following week."
Can we have quotes on these "suggestions" by "some"? At least links to one article that makes these suggestions and suspicions, rather than the ad hoc and intellectually fallible use of "some"?
--Xinoph 22:27, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, as luck would have it, an op-ed in today's (March 30, 2005) edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution written by Bob Barr makes exactly such accusations (in addition to accusing Pres. Bush of refusing to prosecute Berger for fear that bringing up the issue will resurrect questions about Rice's handling of pre-9/11 intelligence). --Delirium 04:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Article appears completely factual NPOV is uncalled for. If Berger deserves defense for the crime he's already pled guilty to that defense should be added as long as it's also factual. If something in the article is wrong that should be discussed hee and corrected/proven in the article - Honest Abe 13 Aug 05
:* Some of the things you posted directly contradict statements in the article you listed. Berger took no original papers, only copies. Please stop posting unbacked partisan rhetoric. Trilemma 01:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements by "Some" 

message: Hillman said: "...the five iterations of the anti-terror "after-action" report at issue in the case were printed out from a hard drive at the Archives and have no notations at all." This is insufficient information because past statements made by administration officials and complicit sycophants often argued minutia. (What the meaning of "is" is, or "that legal rule does not apply because there is no legal ruling authority.") Were the destroyed documents printed out just for Berger's use - or were they pre-existing documents that others had access to? If so, did others add contemporaneous comments to them, or not? How can we be sure? Were the copies, to which Hillman referred, made for the archive from an electronic source file, or were they original copies made for an NSA meeting and handed out to partricipants at that meeting who may have added comments.
Occam's razor says stealing documents by putting them in one's underwear - when a briefcase is available (which he admits to having), but bears the potential of a casual search - indicates a motive of secrecy. Removing multiple copies of the same document in such a manner by the same logic indicates a need to cover up some damaging content that is either in all of them or was added after they were printed out.
Corollary motives could be argued: Berger did not know the memos he stole out of the archives and destroyed were copies, so the destruction may have been an incorrect assumption that their destruction erased their ability to be examined. Or Berger knew they were copies, so stole them in such a covert manner, in order to have access to them for future reference. WmLambert 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC-5)
Berger put no documents in his underwear, only in his pockets. Please don't post unbacked partisan rhetoric. JamieMcCarthy 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joel Hillman statement of no notes in the margin 

message: I have blanked the section discussing the media response to Mr. Berger's conviction (in particular, the demotion of his significance to Sen. Kerry's campaign in news articles). The section did not have high-quality references (in fact it had no references) and therefore did not conform to the Biographies of living persons standard. I think it would be extremely useful information to this article if it is true, but only if it cites high-quality sources.
--Burzum 06:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographies of Living Persons

message: I've added a bunch of "cit needed" tags to the article. I will try to find the original sources myself, but if I don't, I will remove the uncited info from the article within two weeks, save anyone else finding the citations. Regards, --Jayzel 06:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: Why are 2 WSJ opinion pieces being included in the section on the mishandling of classified documents?Gmb92 06:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Street Journal op-eds 

message: This article seems to concentrate on a tiny portion of the history of Sandy Berger's career in public life, at some risk to the public record.
It would be good to pay attention to Berger's role in chasing al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden. He was the guy on the National Security staff who was assigned to "get" bin Laden -- there is no mention of that role at all.
Importantly, there is also no mention of his role in passing the torch of the get-bin-Laden effort to the Bush administration, who refused to take it.
Berger's distinguished career in making good things happen, and in trying to prevent further violence, is completely absent from the article.
See Charlie Rose Show archives, [here]http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2004/06/03/2/a-conversation-with-guest-host-fareed-zakaria-chuck-hagel-and-sandy-berger-about-the-resignation-of-george-tenet
Here's an old Washington Post story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/keyplayers/berger070797.htm
Here's a column in the NY Times with perspective:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6DF133CF930A35752C1A9649C8B63
And more:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E0D7103DF933A15750C0A9679C8B63
Edarrell (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I've reorganized the material a bit. Gathered what little there is on his actual work into one section. Put all the controversy stuff into another. Even after a thorough and much-needed trim of the documents conviction, the article is heavily tilted towards scandal. Needs some more substance, such as you suggest, in order to stay on the right side of the undue weight provisions of NPOV policy. Nosseum (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing the historical record 

message: The document "Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions" (Staff Report, US House of Representatives, 110th Congress) makes it clear that he lied and schemed repeatedly in an effort to cover up his theft of classified National Archives documents. While I understand the desire to appear "neutral" in these Wiki biographies, there is no neutrality in excluding unsavory facts about the character of the biographee. As for the argument that such references to character are somehow irrelevant, I'm hard-pressed to think of something more important to know about a high government official than the fact that he lied about stealing national security secrets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.59.111 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep to facts, not allegations, and you shouldn't have any problems.Cronos1 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the Facts, "Neutral" or Not

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sandy Berger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130125115101/http://www.americaabroadmedia.org/user/34/Samuel_Berger to http://americaabroadmedia.org/user/34/Samuel_Berger
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sandy Berger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004858/http://taiwansecurity.org/News/NYT-990306.htm to http://taiwansecurity.org/News/NYT-990306.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218002357/http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/10/nuclear.secrets.02/ to http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/10/nuclear.secrets.02/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified