Sandy Berger: Meaning (information, definition, explanation, facts)

Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger (born October 28, 1945) served as National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001.

Berger earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Cornell University in 1967 and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1971. He began working in Texas for Senator George McGovern's presidential campaign. There, he met Bill Clinton, forming a friendship that would last for decades.

After the McGovern campaign ended Berger gained experience working in a variety of government posts, including deputy director of policy planning for the U.S. State Department. Later he urged Clinton to run for president. Berger served as Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Governor Clinton during the campaign, and as Assistant Transition Director for National Security of the 1992 Clinton-Gore Transition.

Berger was Clinton's national security advisor from 1997 to 2001. During his tenure he advised the President regarding ongoing operations in Iraq and responses to the terrorist bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

In 2004, Berger was called to testify before the 9/11 Commission regarding steps taken against terrorism during his tenure and the information he provided to his successor, Condoleezza Rice.

Criminal investigation

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for illegally taking classified documents, in October 2003, from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were commissioned from Richard Clarke about the Clinton administration's handling of millennium terror threats. Berger maintained that the illegal removal of notes and documents in his jacket, pants and attache-case was accidental, but left the John Kerry campaign shortly after the incident became public. Berger denied an archive staffer's report that his theft of classified materials included documents stuffed in his socks.

Some suggested that Berger's removal of the documents constituted theft and moreover had serious national security implications. Also, some have voiced suspicion about the timing of the leak of the investigation, suggesting it might have been intended to distract attention from the release of the 9/11 Commission report later that week and the Democratic National Convention the following week.