Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Berger's back, before he's even finished going away
Back on April 2, 2005, I wrote:
So if [Samuel R. "Sandy"] Berger indeed still has a future as a political appointee, that will be the fault of the politicians, not the prosecutors....
... [I]f my nightmare scenario comes to pass — if the Senate is ever again asked to confirm Sandy Berger for any public post — I believe it would be wrong for the opposition to filibuster his nomination. Oh, no — he'll deserve an up-or-down vote on the merits, with every senator going on record! ... But with respect to Sandy Berger, that future political judgment on the Senate floor ought to be — may not turn out to be, but ought to be, if principle can indeed prevail over spin — preordained by this week's legal judgment in a court of law: GUILTY.
He is guilty. Forever, undeniably — guilty. Pardoned or not, rehabilitated or not, penitent or not, buffoonish or not — self-admittedly guilty of deliberately, intentionally, cynically, cravenly betraying the public trust and the national interest of this country. And then he lied about it to the public, before finally confessing as part of his guilty plea.
Bookmark this post for 2009 — just in case.
Earlier this summer, convicted criminal Berger's sentencing was postponed from its original July setting until September. But obviously, my 2009 target date was off by a full four years. Even before his sentence has been pronounced, much less fulfilled, the rehabilitation of Sandy Berger's public career has already begun — not through any penance or public service, but through a bureaucratically bloviating op-ed in today's Washington Post, co-written with none other than Brent Scowcroft.
This makes me absolutely nauseated. I'm completely unsurprised that the WaPo would start flacking for convicted criminal Berger again, but whatever remaining respect I had for Mr. Scowcroft has completely evaporated.
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Berger's back, before he's even finished going away and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
(1) Dwilkers made the following comment | Jul 28, 2005 9:21:57 AM | Permalink
That's the last straw for Scowcroft. Co-authoring an op-ed on an incredibly important national security matter with Berger has finally and forever removed any credibility he had left.
(2) ed in texas made the following comment | Jul 28, 2005 12:20:52 PM | Permalink
Kinda puts an interesting slant on the 'Baker Institute' they've set up over at Rice U, don't it?
(3) craig mclaughlin made the following comment | Jul 28, 2005 4:32:03 PM | Permalink
Last night on "Charlie Rose" I saw Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack complaining about Karl Rove. The next segment featured Berger holding forth about something or other---I lost interest.
What respect? Scowcroft has always been despicable, one of the least appetising members of the very unappetising Bush I administration.
(5) AlanDownunder made the following comment | Aug 1, 2005 3:08:08 AM | Permalink
So what's your take on the rehabilitation of Abrams, MacFarlane, Poindexter, Colson & Liddy?
The fact that Sandy Berger is not in jail right now says all we need to know about the feckless Republican administration of political affairs.
The comments to this entry are closed.