I think the issue, aside from destroying classified materials, is that there were notes on the copies that weren't on the originals. So, when he detroyed the copies, he destroyed notes from the various officials who had responded to the documents.

More important than the destruction of the documents is the fact that he left the archives with classified materials. Bad as that is, destroyed classified documents can't hurt anyone. Uncontrolled classified documents have the potential to hurt people or compromise national security, depending on what information is in them.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

So it wouldn't bother you if he got rid of evidence of a cover up?

Interesting.

This is perfect spin in that the statement can be defended as factually correct, but it omits all the relevant information.

The government still has the underlying Richard Clarke document, but if Bill Clinton wrote on the document "this Clarke guy is a total waste of time with his sky is falling fears, don't ever bother me with this bin Laden rubbish again," that information is gone forever.

Berger is a big fish. He took one for the team. Guys like that don't fall on their sword for no reason. He is just too smart and too good for that.

You're almost as good as Brian at putting words into someone's mouth.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

there were notes on the copies that weren't on the originals.

Can you point me to a news story that shows he destroyed actual original evidence? I'm not doubting it, but I just haven't been able to find any neutral source of info on it. I find it very odd that he would have 5 copies of a document, if they were all the same, and destroy some yet return the others.

ouch.

Don't you think that destroying originals is indicative of a cover-up? Whereas destroying copies would just be indicative of carelessness (but still a very bad thing to do)?

I couldn't find anything saying he detroyed any originals. I think I was thinking of reports that in addition to the documents, he had taken his own handwritten notes out of the Archives prior to anyone checking them to make sure those notes weren't classified.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Don't you think that destroying originals is indicative of a cover-up?"

I do. However, Tibbs didn't say he wouldn't be concerned about a cover-up, just that in this case, he thought the removal of classified documents was more important than the destruction of those documents, regardless of the reason. I don't agree, but he didn't say he didn't care about a cover-up.

"Whereas destroying copies would just be indicative of carelessness (but still a very bad thing to do)?"

I don't think destroying the copies was carelessness. i think it was an attempt to hide what he did wrong.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)