|
A quick perusal of cable media stations like CNN and
MSNBC during this period would revealed people like
Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews giving a substantial
amount of time to the burgeoning scandal by having
intense debates regarding Mr. Berger’s behavior.
Throughout the day the regular anchors on both stations
gave updates about the case. Curiously, these debates
and discussions stressed the more inflammatory and
damning accusations made against Berger and downplayed
some of the more exculpatory facts which would have
mitigated the seriousness of the scandal. Republican
Congressman like Saxby Chambliss were allowed to go
on the air and make unproven assertions, and others
like Dennis Hastert accused Berger of trying to “re-write
history” by hiding some documents which would
have reflected unkindly on the Clinton administrations
efforts against terror.
Lost in all the stentorian harrumphing and disingenuous
concern of some of these political figures was the
fact that it was reported that Berger had taken copies
of these documents and that the originals still remained
in the possession of the National Archives. On shows
like Chris Matthew’s “Hardball,”
this fact was lost in the din of all the overheated
hyperventilation about Berger’s possible motivations.
Thus, many different hypothetical scenarios were
posited about why Berger did what he did. Some theorized
ominously that he had been directed by Bill Clinton
himself to eliminate all incriminating documents before
the 9/11 Commission got their hands on them, while
others thought that he might have been pilfering these
documents so that he could surreptitiously give them
to the Kerry Campaign. In all the commentary of the
scandal it was rarely brought up how ridiculous both
of these claims were.
First, these were copies Berger took, so if he wanted
to keep the originals away from the Commission this
wouldn’t have been a very effective way to achieve
this goal. Second, John Kerry is a member of the Foreign
Relations Committee and has access to all of these
documents; therefore he wouldn’t need Berger
to steal them for him.
In recent days it’s been confirmed that the
documents that Berger took were indeed copies and
that the 9/11 Commission had access to all the information
it needed, though you would have to search pretty
hard to find this information in the media. In stark
contrast to the frenzy accompanying the initial reporting
of this story there has been a deafening silence with
regards to these recently reported facts.
The
Unmasking of Khan
Now contrast this the reporting of, and surrounding
commentary on, the outing of the al Qaeda operative,
Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan by officials in the U.S.
government. Eager to justify Tom Ridge’s recent
terror warnings, unnamed officials in the Bush administration
revealed in a background briefing to journalists that
the source of the new information behind Ridge’s
announcement was Khan.
Khan was an Al Qaeda computer expert who helped Osama
bin Laden communicate with his terrorist network and
had been “turned” by the Pakistanis after
his arrest. He was being used by the Pakistanis in
sting operations to break up terrorist cells in the
U.S., Britain and around the world, but by blowing
his cover the Bush administration effectively terminated
his usefulness.
After his name was leaked, counterterrorism officials
saw a steep drop off in intercepted communications
between suspected terrorists.
In addition, the British MI5 were forced to hastily
arrest 13 members of a London cell in the fear that
they would flee after learning of Khan’s arrest.
Another five who were targeted immediately went underground
after hearing that Khan was in custody and have eluded
arrest thanks in part to the administrations blunder.
It has been exceedingly difficult to penetrate al
Qaeda and finally there was a mole to help gather
information that could lead to capture of more terrorists,
and possibly bin Laden himself. The outing of this
mole was an unmitigated disaster.
What was the media’s response after another
display of rank incompetence by this administration?
It certainly wasn’t nearly as heated and intense
as it was during the Berger affair despite the fact
that this was far more damaging to U.S. security interests
and has much more dire implications for the War on
Terror. Other than a handful of senators (Schumer
and Allen) voicing concern and politely asking for
an explanation from the administration on Blitzer’s
show, there has been a very muted reaction expressed
through the press. There certainly hasn’t been
nearly the amount of accusatory and finger pointing
discussions and debates as there were during the previous
controversy, and the scandal seems to be fading away
without any calls for accountability on the part of
those in the Bush administration.
So the next time someone uses the red herring of
the “liberal media” to complain about
press coverage, the comparative reporting of these
two stories should be cited evidence to the contrary.
| 
