Finally. These hearings should have taken place a long time ago. I've read quite a few things pointing out how much the Bush administration knew about possible Al Qaida attacks, and how little they did with that information, and I've been disgusted that none of this information was being closely examined.

Of course, baseless and ridiculous "rebuttals" are already coming from the White House regarding accusations made by Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official. Here's an excerpt from the Times article:

"Mr. Clarke, who served under Mr. Bush and former President Bill Clinton, says the United States waged 'an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq' that served to stir Islamic militants around the world. He is scheduled to testify before the panel on Wednesday.

The White House has called his accusations 'deeply irresponsible' and on Monday deployed several members of the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, to rebut Mr. Clarke's charges. The White House also noted that Mr. Clarke's accusations come during an already heated presidential election campaign, suggesting that the motivation was politics and not policy."

The White House statements somehow perfectly encapsulate everything stupid about the administration. The war in Iraq DID stir Islamic militants around the world, and the extent to which they've been stirred is only becoming more and more obvious lately (Madrid, anyone?). The necessity of the Iraq war has yet to be proved, and, well damn, it certainly was costly. The White House accusation of Clarke's "irresponsibility" invokes all kinds of scary Big Brother-esque feelings in me, the claim being that any questioning of government actions is irresponsible and potentially traitorous.

I don't quite know how Cheney and the other members are going to rebut Clarke's charges--they are kind of un-rebuttable. Even the Washington Post writes: "The campaign's defense strategy was that although Clarke could not be roundly refuted on the facts, enough doubt about the issue could be raised by portraying him as reckless and partisan." Yup, that's the tactic. "Well, we can't actually contest anything he said, because he's right, so let's just make him look bad instead." That's some real strong policy-based decision making right there. Not politically motivated at all.

And oddly enough, it is always the White House jumping up and accusing everyone of being "politically motivated" during this election year. It's like the panacea response to the valid questions being raised: "You're politically motivated." It's a cop out, a veil being pulled across the administration, obviating the need for a real response. It's pissing me off.

I want them out of office. I don't just want them out of office. I want them investigated, impeached, properly accused of distorting democracy and twisting the constitution all around and generally being scary, lying, bad, bad men. A simple request, I think. If Clinton can be impeached for getting head, Bush can be impeached for, oh, I don't know, stealing the election and lying to the American people and threatening our national security. Just for starters.