Headline: Adviser to Clinton Took Terror documents, BUT IT'S NO BIG DEAL!

You know, in all fairness, I'm surprised this story made the front page of the Seattle Times. I suppose, as it is the lead story for virtually every other news outlet, they had no choice. But just the same, two points for the Times.

That is until you bother to actually READ the story. Of course, the story I'm referring to is today's front page, above the fold piece, "Advisor to Clinton Took Terror Documents". Apparently, Sandy Berger "inadvertently" removed classified documents from the National Archive prior to the 9/11 commission hearings.

The second paragraph states, "Berger inadvertently took copies of several versions...". I understand that this is the type of liberal bias that is hard to prove, but I assure you, if the situation was reversed and it was a Bush advisor who removed classified documents prior to the 9/11 commission's hearings, the Times WOULD NOT state the facts this way. At the very least, the Times would say something like, "Rice alleges she inadvertently took copies of several versions...". I would stake my very life on this assessment.

After the first two paragraphs, the Times devotes, I swear to God, the entire rest of the story explaining how this is not a big deal. I want to identify all the quotes that attempt to minimize the importance of this story:

"We've been trying to work with the government on this...he's only a subject of the investigation no more, they're just looking into this".

"He returned them and papers which he had taken notes about materials he had reviewed".

"...it is not at all clear to us this represents a violation of the law".

"Berger's actions were the result of sloppiness and were unintentional".

"...he has offered to cooperate."

"...I had no intention of withholding documents from the commission".

"I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives".

"I immediately returned everything I had".

"The commission members...did not view the documents as crucial".

There are two paragraphs devoted to former CIA Director John Deutch who apparently did a similar thing and was pardoned by Clinton. This has absolutely no relevance to the story, except to show that apparently this kind of thing occurs all the time?

"Clarke said it is illogical to assume Berger would have sought to hide versions of the memo because everybody in town had copies of these things".

"Condoleezza Rice testified she did not recall being briefed on the report during the transition..." Apparently, this demonstrates how unimportant these documents were.

And, of course, questions are raised about the timing of this investigation, "...a couple of days before the 9/11 Commission's report comes out, the whole thing gets leaked". This suggests there are political motivations behind this, which there probably are, ha ha.

Again, in a parallel universe, it would be fascinating to contrast this story with one involving a Bush adviser.