OxBlog

# Posted 11:02 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

SANDY BURGLAR: I don't want to touch this one with a ten foot pole. The amount of time it takes to master all the details of a scandal is just too much.

That said, a few quick thoughts. First, Greg Djerejian is right; the NYT's first article about the Berger incident was pathetic. Second, Berger really f***ed over Kerry bad by not letting him know the first thing about the investigation. My guess is the Berger expected to be cleared and didn't want to say anything until after he was confirmed as Secretary of State or Defense.

Finally, Berger's motives remain a mystery. Josh Marshall (who saw nothing wrong with the Times' coverage of the story) also admits to being befuddled and writes that:

I think a lot of Democrats are going to be asking why Berger didn't see this coming down the pike, step aside from his prominent advisory role with the Kerry campaign, and avoid at least the immediate partisan political dimensions of the current predicament almost entirely.
I say it with much less than no pleasure. But I'm wondering. And I don't have a good answer.

I don't have a precise answer, either, but Josh might begin by asking whether perhaps, just perhaps, arrogance, selfishness, disloyalty and contempt for open government are personality traits on which Republicans do not have a monopoly.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion