You have a very selective memory. Mueller became FBI director on Sept. 10, 2001. Freeh's people were all still in place. Freeh's procedures were in place. Freeh's restrictions (held over from the Clinton administration) were in place.
It was the Bush administration that completely disregarded the Hart-Rudman report (commissioned under Clinton) that identified the the current problems with our anti-terrorist efforts. It was the Bush Administration that ignored the Gore Commission Report that discussed aviation safety and security. And it was the Bush administration that pulled surveillance off of the bin Laden family.
All bullshit.
The Hart-Rudman report was presented in the Clinton adminstration, as was the Gore Commission Report (ignored by Gore and Clinton when the Airlines paid considerable coin into his election coffers).
What evidence was there that the binLaden family in the United States were terrorists, were cooperating with their brother (whom they had renounced years before) or that they had ever had anything to do with terrorism? Is there evidence now, other than the rumblings of conspiracy pinheads?
It's time for Ashcroft to accept responsibility and step aside.
This is ludicrous on its face. As is most of your hyperventilating post.
You seem to be taking the same approach that I mentioned doesn't work in real life and making that the new talking point. Such a big swing in defenses. For you to say some major housecleaning is in order is Such a shock.
Why, it makes me ask the question "WHY NOW?"
Could it be like I said to you on another thread "MORE WILL COME OUT!"? huh? waddya think?
You are correct on Mueller - my mistake. However, the FBI under Clinton and Reno never rejected a FISA request. Under Bush and Ashcroft they did.
"The Hart-Rudman report was presented in the Clinton adminstration..."
Interestingly enough it was after Bush took office that the final portion of the Hart-Rudman report was issued. And, "Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker." - from www.cjr.org.
What evidence was there that the binLaden family in the United States were terrorists, were cooperating with their brother
Their brother. Hmmmm...Well, the family connection itself. Are you saying that you trust the Saudis THAT much? But the bin Laden surveillance is secondary to the Al Queda surveillance that was removed, as well as the discussions Bush implemented with the Taliban (Clinton had no discussions).
[Ashcroft stepping down] "is ludicrous on its face..."
You're right - Ashcroft never did serve in the military, so it is ludicrous to expect him to step down.
I was of the understanding that he had been in for 4 days, not that an extra 72 hours means much.
Freeh's people were all still in place. Freeh's procedures were in place. Freeh's restrictions (held over from the Clinton administration) were in place.
Why, why, and why? Bush was in office for 7 months; why did he allow Louis Freeh to stay in his job for as long as he did? As president, Bush had the power to instruct the "leadership" within the FBI (first Freeh and then the interim director) to clear out all the Clinton appointees and put in people who could be trusted. He didn't do that. And from what I heard from Mueller yesterday, it doesn't sound like he's going to do any purging of these idiots even now.