They can't dismiss Clarke's charges for obvious reason

[chookie]

His Chimperial Highness and his court of flying monkeys have all declared that they were focused with laser accuracy on Al Qaeda from the beginning.

Okay -- if this is true, they why did they marginalize and then demote Richard Clarke, who "shared" their interest in doing away with Al Qaeda? Seems that they would want him on the team, if they had the same goal, as they are all claiming today to protect themselves from his accusations. Condi was saying that he never participated in the "grownup's" discussion of terrorism, which they held every day at a high level.

Now, if he was talking wacky, saying stuff like Michael Jackson was the biggest threat to national security, I could see them gently moving him off the team.

But since he "shared" their passion to fight terrorism, and Al Qaeda in particular -- why the snub?

Seems pretty obvious to me. They didn't want him around because he wasn't telling His Chimperial Highness what he wanted to hear. O! -- there's that familiar pattern again!!

[FloridaPat]

1. Plus the fact that they were trying to get an oil pipeline deal

with the Taliban. The rumors that Bush told the FBI to stop investigating anything that had to do with Saudia Arabia. I'm sitting here listening to the White House briefing and what's his name saying how they were hot and heavy onto terrorism from the state. Lies, lies lies.

[chookie]

2. Yup, that too

And THAT's why Cheney doesn't want any info to come out regarding his precious Energy Policy meetings -- because they were planning what they were going to grab. We already know that Iraq was discussed. We already know that Ken Lay was a member of this committee.

I think we can guess why Cheney doesn't want this info out -- because he's going to be impeached over it.

[Viking12]

3. They can't dismiss Clarke's charge because there's...

They can't dismiss Clarke's charge because there's awfully strong circumstantial evidence to support his claims. Check out this article which links to a number of DoJ documents that show A$$croft abandoning Janet Reno's focus on terrorism. The WH* cannot claim they were aggressive under the light of scrutiny.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039

[chookie]

4. Yup, that too

Ashcroft actually *cut* DOJ specing on counter-terrorism programs that had been set up in the Clinton administration.

Louis Freeh was also passionate about counter-terrorism, and had worked closely with Clinton to develop programs to counter it.

It is said that he and Ashcroft, in private meetings, would scream at own another and pound the table, so violent was their disagreement on the importance of this issue. Surely, His Chimperial Highness KNEW that the Crisco Kid was gutting these programs.

Finally, Freeh resigned. He didn't want the blood on his hands.

ANd let's look back a bit, to Jan-Sept 2001. There certainly were not public signs of their itnerest in terrorism. Instead, they were advocating the renewal of missile programs like Star Wars. Plus -- they totally withdrew themselves from what was a disturbing accellaration of violence in Israel/Palestine, when people, Israeli and Palestinian, were being slaughtered on a *daily* basis -- without a peep from the WH or even the State Department.