With respect to the 'this was a politically motivated leak' argument, I'm just going to repost something I read earlier today on another website because I really can't say it better:
Who demonstrably benefits from the timing of the news that Sandy Berger is under investigation for sneaking highly classified documents from the National Archives? Berger and his defenders. So, it is far more likely that the leak came from his side. It would eventually become known that he was under investigation. Would the Democrats' convention week be a better time? How about an October Surprise for the informal Kerry adviser? Republican convention week would be no good because the GOP couldn't be fingered for it given that they have no reason to create a distraction from their own big show. The news this week provides his defenders with the only "defense" they have - suspicious timing! It's worked like a charm--Dan Rather headlined the alleged well-orchestrated leak to coincide with the 9/11 Commission report before the underlying charges were even mentioned. And, the timing provides the Democrats with a two-fer: dastardly Republicans are smearing Berger to distract attention from the pending criticism of President Bush who ignored warnings about 9/11, which is not the conclusion of the Commission but who the heck is actually going to read the report?
Had someone friendly to the Administration wanted to distract attention from uncomfortable coverage of the White House by disclosing the Berger investigation they sure missed plenty of better opportunities than on the eve of the 9/11 Commission report. How about when Berger's successor Condi Rice was being pilloried for refusing to testify in public? It would have been a helpful distraction during Richard Clarke's media blitz. When Berger himself testified about how the Clinton Administration did everything humanly possible to get OBL and thwart attacks questions about what he was up to in the National Archives would have been pertinent.
Anyone who doesn't appreciate how the Berger bunch has used the fortuitous timing to their advantage must have slept through the Clinton years. The defense is classic. First, the mean Republicans, then the meaningless personal testimonials--"if you knew Sandy Berger like I know Sandy Berger (or Betty Currie). . .," then the irrelevant--he is an extremely hardworking guy who was only trying to help the Commission (we're working, working, working here at the White House), and finally (the political use of FBI files, the lost billing records) the removal of the classified documents was "inadvertent."http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_07_18_corner-archive.asp#036189