Bergergate III
Robert Musil points out that Sandy Berger already has credibility issues. If you recall, Time magazine wrote in August 2002, that Berger claimed that the Clinton aministration had placed an almost fully-developed, working plan to eliminate Al-Qaeda on Bush's desk, which apparently went ignored by the incompentant Bush adminstration.
Unfortunately for Berger, in September of 2002 he testified under oath:
BERGER: Now, the second question you asked—which comes off of the Time magazine story, I think—was there a plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition? I could address that.
The transition, as you will recall, was condensed by virtue of the election in November. I was very focused on using the time that we had—I had been on the other side of a transition with General Scowcroft in 1992. But we used that time very efficiently to convey to my successor the most important information—what was going on and what situations they faced.
Number one among those was terrorism and Al Qaida. And I told that to my successor. She has acknowledged that publicly, so I’m not violating any private conversation. We briefed them fully on what we were doing—on what else was under consideration and what the threat was. I personally attended part of that briefing to emphasize how important that was. But there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect.
Of course it is impossible to say exactly what Berger told Time, and what Time extrapolated and sensationalized. But in my opinion, whether he invented this myth or Time spun it, an honest man has the obligation to correct the record publically and forcefully when his name is attached to such a slanderous story.
