Berger—who was serving as an informal adviser for John Kerry’s presidential campaign before news of the scandal broke—was appointed as the official from the Clinton administration who would review relevant documents requested by the 9/11 commission. He also served as a witness for the commission, and reviewed records at the Archives in preparation for his testimony.

Berger has stated that he reviewed thousands of documents, but it was, apparently, Richard Clarke’s so-called “after-action report” that piqued his interest. The report is harshly critical of the Clinton administration’s handling of the millennium terrorist plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport, among other targets, in late 1999. Berger is accused of taking multiple copies of this report on multiple days. In fact, this is the only document that Berger is reported to have taken, raising question marks about his “honest mistake” theory.

Earlier this year, the FBI served warrants on Berger’s home and office, but Berger said he could not locate two or three copies of the aforementioned millennium terror report. He says that when the Archives told him that there were documents missing, he immediately returned everything he had except for a few that he apparently “had accidentally discarded.” The Justice Department is currently investigating whether Berger’s actions were criminal. Berger’s lawyer is arguing that they weren’t.

After the story broke last week, the Kerry camp accused the White House of timing the leaking of the story in an attempt to distract attention away from the 9/11 report. The White House, however, denied those allegations, as a look at the report shows that it is not a huge anti-Bush bombshell, as predicted. In fact, the report shows a total of four incidents as far back as 1998 where Berger decided not to attack Osama bin Laden after receiving credible information and recommendations from both George Tenet and Richard Clarke.

If Berger is as innocent as he claims, why didn’t he release the information about the investigation, himself, when he’s obviously known about it since last year. The truth is, he’s had control of the timing of this story all along. A more plausible explanation might be that the story was leaked by either the Berger or Kerry camp early to get it out of the way in time for the election. It would certainly seem so. The Berger-friendly New York Times and Washington Post both buried the story on their front pages, deciding Lance Armstrong’ s sixth-straight Tour de France win (yawn) was more important than a story about corruption at our country’s highest levels, and their compadres in network television have given viewers very cursory glances at the story. Why not pick a cooperative media when trying to bury a story? I mean, have you heard much else about the story in last few days? I didn’t think so.

It’s great to know that, in this day and age of so-called “tolerance” and “enlightenment,” people will base their vote on anything and everything except what’s most important: the truth. But how can we blame ourselves? If politicians and popular media place no premium on the truth, why should we?

Because we should be better than them, that’s why.