After reading the latest story from the New York Times on Sandy Berg(l)er, I'm reminded of those old Wendy's commercials... "Where's the Beef?"

Earlier today I took the Times to task for trying to down play the Sandy Bergler story.

• No mention of him stuffing the documents in his pants.
• No mention of the FBI searching his home.
• No mention that some highly classified material is still missing.
• No mention that he had other classified material in his home.
• No mention that he KNOWINGLY took the documents.
• No mention that the FBI searched his home after staffers caught him stealing the documents.

They have a new story up now... Let's see how they did.

• No mention of him stuffing the documents in his pants.
They mentioned it alright- When they lied about it: "The affair took on a slightly comic note today, as Republican senators said Mr. Berger had apparently put some papers in his trousers."

The problem is that HIS LAWYER said that! But notice they tried to make the Republicans look foolish.

• No mention of the FBI searching his home.
After 2 stories the New York Times thinks that having the FBI search the home of a former National Security Advisor is still news not fit to print.

• No mention that some highly classified material is still missing.
They finally ran part of his lawyers press release saying that they were "discarded."

No asking how the list of places the United States is most vulnerable to terrorist attack was "discarded." Was it simply put in the trash? Was it shredded? Since you stole the documents and lied about it, how do we know it was "discarded?" Did you make any copies it them? If so where are the copies? Why can some guy on a blog ask better questions than the New York Times? All questions that should be answered.

• No mention that he had other classified material in his home.
The fact he had done this before is still not important to the Times.

• No mention that he KNOWINGLY took the documents.
Still no mention. He admitted that he knowing broke the law by stealing highly classified documents. The Times did not think that was important enough to print.

• No mention that the FBI searched his home after staffers caught him stealing the documents.
NOPE- It has since come out that the staffers at the National Archives knew he was stealing documents so they put special markings on the ones they gave him. Again not a peep from the NYT.

All things considered, they still have not covered any of the important information in the case. A National Security Advisor stole classified documents for unknown reasons and the New York Times seems strangely disinterested.

If Clara Peller were alive today and reading the New York Times, I'm sure she'd ask, "Where's the Beef?"