  urlLink Andrew Sullivan makes several off-base accusations about Berger and that other scourge of national security, Bill Clinton. There are several mistakes in Sullivan's account that bear examination. First, I don't agree with Sullivan's accusation that there is any major discrepency between the two characterizations in the NY Times.
Berger was accused of stuffing notes in his socks. He did not. He placed some of the notes in his pants and jacket pockets. I don't think most people would describe that act as "stashing material in his clothing". Secondly, Sullivan mischaracterizes the legality of Berger's actions -- "illegal purloining" as he puts it. However, although Berger's actions went against Arhive policy, they did not violate standing U.S. law.
And as for why he did it. Berger's lawyer provided an answer when he spoke with Wolf Blitzer last night: "Sandy Berger had been reviewing thousands and thousands of pages of classified documents. He did it so that he could give informed answers to the 9/11 commission. And so the very documents that have formed the basis of their report could be produced. He did that by himself because no one else could do it or would do it. So he has a table. He's working openly. There are Archives people there and there are thousands of documents. And in the course of his review it was clear to everyone he had a leather portfolio. He brought it in openly. The Archives people knew it. And anyone who has works with Sandy knows he always has that leather portfolio and there were lots of business papers that have nothing at all to do with this commission. "And perhaps, Wolf, there was too much informality by Sandy and maybe too much informality by the Archives people.
But at some point when he leaves, the memorandum got caught with his business papers and he walked out. It was inadvertent. He admitted the mistake..." Now you may not buy this explanation. With the information available at this particular moment it seems to be the most plausible one. If Berger was attempting to rewrite history, as Sullivan suggests, his actions came much to late. The document, authored by Richard Clarke, has been mentioned in several different sources, including several published books.
Its contents are well known. Sullivan predictably blames the mainstream media for their lack of coverage. This simply isn't true. Like most Washington scandals this one is being covered extensively -- CNN has been all over this story. Finally, Sullivan does not acknowledge the most obvious point: Whoever leaked this story to the press - in an blatant effort to divert attention away from the release of the 9-11 commission findings - has achieved some level of success. 
