[Piranha]

Looks like Ashcroft done kicked a hornet's nest. Maybe now we'll see what caused this whole mess, Cuz soon she will be gone, Jamie's going home, the Chairman he wrote her a letter. The Chairman, he wrote her a letter...

That's just it. Why does this story have to leak out now. The Bush administration presumably would have an interest in sharing the truth. If there really was a John Doe No. 3 and an Islamic connection (as I think there was), then why can't the relevant documents be declassified all at once?

And why did Ashcroft rush to execute McVeigh? I don't understand that part at all.

[Spunky]

"And why did Ashcroft rush to execute McVeigh? I don't understand that part at all."

See my posting at #272.

There was nothing left to do but execute him.

[ovrtaxt]

Jayna Davis, on Glenn Beck today, put forth a 2 pronged theory.

First, that the new tone, and the non-pursuit of any old Clinton era garbage, was necessary to bury the impression that the Republicans were just obsessed with desperately trying to pin ANYTHING on him. To this day, the Bush Admin is very careful to leave that stuff alone. The pursuit of this evidence would seem to be an attempt to blame Clinton for the terrorism problem, probably something that Bush trusts people to figure out for themselves.

Second, that the relevant info, which seems to have stopped at the Dallas FBI office, (by the direction of Gorelick/Reno, presumably) never made it to the players in Washington. Agency staffers were mainly holdovers from Clinton, so the DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and any and all relevant agency heads were kept in the dark as to the existence of Davis's further evidence. (She cited Condi's testimony as to the credibility of this situation-- that decision makers simply didn't have good info.)

So Ashcroft was eager to off McVeigh because of the appearance of sparing him, and the bad press that would surely ensue.

I don't know,though. It sounds plausible, certainly sounds like politicians, but I'm willing to wait and see what else shakes out. Especially in an election year.

[ovrtaxt]

Jayna Davis, on Glenn Beck today, put forth a 2 pronged theory.

First, that the new tone, and the non-pursuit of any old Clinton era garbage, was necessary to bury the impression that the Republicans were just obsessed with desperately trying to pin ANYTHING on him. To this day, the Bush Admin is very careful to leave that stuff alone. The pursuit of this evidence would seem to be an attempt to blame Clinton for the terrorism problem, probably something that Bush trusts people to figure out for themselves.

Second, that the relevant info, which seems to have stopped at the Dallas FBI office, (by the direction of Gorelick/Reno, presumably) never made it to the players in Washington. Agency staffers were mainly holdovers from Clinton, so the DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, and any and all relevant agency heads were kept in the dark as to the existence of Davis's further evidence. (She cited Condi's testimony as to the credibility of this situation-- that decision makers simply didn't have good info.)

So Ashcroft was eager to off McVeigh because of the appearance of sparing him, and the bad press that would surely ensue.

I don't know,though. It sounds plausible, certainly sounds like politicians, but I'm willing to wait and see what else shakes out. Especially in an election year.

[Sender]

And why did Ashcroft rush to execute McVeigh? I don't understand that part at all.

That is the $64k question. I don't think it was Ashcroft who hurried things up though. I sure happened fast considering it was someone who could have yielded so much information.

[ApesForEvolution]

Post #269...DAMN STR8. That's EXACTLY what I've been asking all these years the government has been covering up the testimony of witnesses to attacks on our Federal Buildings, Financial Infrastructure and Transportation system, to name a few...it's pure, unadulterated BS. I can handle the truth - just WHO can't? For sure Klintoon the laughable...Papa Bush? Who else? Hmmm.