I don’t really mind that the Journal has come to the defense of Sandy Berger. They seem to have done due dilligence and think their fact-finding supports that position. I may be unconvinced, but obviously the Journal isn’t operating in bad faith or involved in any cover-up.
But what does bother me is their complete lack of outrage about the facts as they find them. They write:
Lesser officials have received harsher penalties for more minor transgressions, so a complete airing of the facts will show the public that justice is being done. But given the minimal damage from the crime, this looks to be a case where prosecutors have shown some commendable restraint against a high-powered political figure.
Isn’t this bad? Why does the Journal concede that lesser officials have been treated more harshly and then in the same breath praise the plea deal? Why is the restraint “commendable” if it amounts to a lower standard for Berger when a much stronger argument could be made for a higher standard? Where is the concern that Berger’s kid-glove treatment sends a terrible message to all of the folks who deal responsibly with classified materials (many of whom send me very angry emails). I am sure there are lots of decent, less-famous, folks who would love to bring classified documents home and work on them there so they can spend more time with their families. Even if the facts are exactly as the Journal contends, his behavior was outrageous. It would be nice to hear a bit more ackonowledgement of that fact.