Let me get this straight, Samuel "Sandy" Berger's reasoning for voluntarily surrendering his law license was because "he had not used it a long time and does not anticipate using in the future" (paraphrase)?

Folks, this gives a whole new level of meaning to the word 'ostensible'!

Before I give you the real reasons as to why Mr. Berger might have surrendered his license to practice law, allow me to assist you all to a return to the thrilling days of yester-year when common sense was a little more common!

First, just from my own experience; I have a commercial drivers license or a CDL that I obtained some 12 years ago. I have not driven commercially in several years, and may not ever do so again. But I am maintaining my license for two main reasons. 1) I worked very hard to get this license! and 2) I do not know what the future will hold so I keep it as an option!

Now I am not comparing the hard work and effort required to obtain a CDL to the work and effort needed to obtain a law license. There really is no comparison. I will stipulate that it takes much more time, effort, dedication, financial commitment and more to obtain a law license. So the notion that one would capriciously or voluntarily surrender it is beyond believable!

Most people who chose practising law as a career I have to believe have wanted to do so since they were youngsters! With all the effort put forth to obtain a law degree, then a license to practice, it is not something that one would give up lightly!

No, Mr. Berger knew full well that had he not surrendered his license, he would have faced intense scrutiny and investigation from the District of Columbia Bar Association with regard to his involvement in the documents he pilfered from the National Archives; an investigation which might have gone all the way back to the Clinton administration, and demonstrated very clearly their lack of due diligence in their unwillingness to kill or capture Bin Laden! They (the missing documents) could have likely shown that they had multiple opportunities to do so, and for whatever reasons did not!

His testimony might have revealed that he was ordered or pressured to act the way he did, and commit a crime against the American people by destroying property that belonged to them! Imagine what would happen to you or I if we were to climb Mt. Rushmore and dynamite one of the figures! It is the same thing!

The big question is, was he pressured to act the way he did, or was it his own legacy he was trying to preserve? It may well be a combination of both, but I would wager based upon the Clinton's known modus operandi that it was likely more of the former! A sentiment Vince Foster and Ron Brown would likely share!

It is sad that I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libbey was convicted and is going to jail because of what is likely his faulty recall about an incident, which if it was a crime, was not committed by him, (a fact that the prosecutor knew almost from the outset of his investigation), yet ol' Sandy who committed a real crime, likely committed on another's behalf, got off with a fine! Oh, that's right, I forgot; he also gave up his law license!