I know it’s ho-hum by now, but the New York Times, which finally got around to covering the Sandy Berger fich-fest today, waited until PARAGRAPH 16 of its story to mention the post-Millennium after action review — the document Berger has been reported to have somehow “inadvertently” snatched on multiple occasions. This minor detail — i.e., the apparent inadvertent target of Berger’s apparent inadvertent exertions — is the subject of a dead-on lead Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, and rated this near the top (paragraph 3) of today’s Washington Post story: “A government official with knowledge of the probe said Berger removed from archives files all five or six drafts of a critique of the government’s response to the millennium terrorism threat, which he said was classified ‘codeword,’ the government’s highest level of document security.” I’m starting to have trouble even remembering the good old days when the Times at least pretended at objectivity.