Dr. Sanity: A Motive For Berger's Bizarre Behavior?

In A Motive For Berger's Bizarre Behavior?, Dr. Sanity has a very worthwhile post discussing some of the Clinton era officials' connections to the 9-11 attacks, and the recent revelations about Able Danger.

I'll have more to say about this, I suspect, when I have more time.  Suffice it to say that it's certainly plausible that Jamie Gorelick should have been testifying before the 9-11 Commission rather than sitting on it.

8/11/05 1915: Captain Ed notes the timeline.  I should also note the trackback link to this post, which tries to excoriate blogs "on the right" by saying that we're all talking about the same things.  I have two answers to that.  One, provide an answer to the questions that explains both the behavior and the timeline for Mr. Berger, and two, explain why the architect of the "wall of separation" policy should not be asked about information that may have been blocked from passing that wall.

8/11/05 2120: Rusty Shackleford has another good question.

[T]here was an individual who had to look at the documents and make a decision not to share this intelligence with those that could do something about it. Who was this person who made the decision to follow policy?

There is much more at Jawa Report.  Check out most, if not all, of the links.

Others blogging this (the list is long and distinguished): Right Wing Nut House, Flopping Aces, The Anchoress, The Strata-Sphere, Hyscience, Dinocrat

Look, it's fairly simple.  I don't believe in looking back and pointing fingers, and using blame of someone as an excuse for someone else.  It does no good whatsoever to assign blame to an individual or group when something goes wrong.  But the process that led to the failure, the process that needs to be changed - and was, in the Patriot act - needs to be understood fully if the problems are to be solved, and to sniff out other problems before disaster strikes.  Dr. Shackleford opines that the "wall" was such an obviously stupid idea to begin with that he could hardly believe it would be followed.  If that policy led to disaster it would serve ample notice to be very, very careful to avoid hamstringing investigative efforts in the future.

Let's say, hypothetically of course, that Berger did remove documents that implicated him in blocking the passage of information to the FBI.  I am not interested in blaming Sandy Berger for 9/11.  I'm much more interested in understanding how that silly wall allowed 9/11, in understanding how to avoid a tragic intelligence failure in the future, and in developing policies that make interdicting terror attacks easier in the future.

I would, however, be dismayed with Berger for the attempt to cover his tracks.  And I'm a little more than dismayed at the false denials coming from the commission itself.