They are arrogant in their reliance on their belief that there are not enough Americans with enough clout to stop them and the FBI and DOJ coverups. That is, they think and believe they can get away with breaking the law, not enforcing the law properly and not adequately protecting Americans.
Given this mentality on their part, it makes me concernned these men will not have the proper wisdom, the best judgement, adequate leadership and integrity skills to successfully protect Americans from terrorists already in the US and coming to the US.
But all the while they are slowly but surely creating a police state (greatly reduced freedoms) in America with laws which may never be rescinded once the war on terrorism subsides.
Pardon me, Submariner, since I have followed most every one of your posts on this subject, but I don't believe this for a second. IF -- and it's a big IF -- the Bush administration is covering up the cover-ups, there has to be a logical reason why. Just because the American people couldn't survive the relevation that the Clinton FBI was corrupt?
That's a farce.
Political considerations alone would rule this out, much less the moral and ethical considerations which I believe the Bush administration heeds.
Remember, Janet Reno is mounting a gubernatorial challenge to President Bush's brother in Florida. Don't you think that if Reno's DOJ covered up aspects of OKC that the Bushes wouldn't capitalize on it for political purposes? What theory do you have that trumps the political motivations that George and Jeb must have to beat Reno in FLA?
Do you really believe that the Bush administration believes that Americans could not handle hearing about scandal in the previous administration?
To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to think that this John Doe #2 or 3 or 4 or whatever, theory is BS. I just can't conceive of a reason, especially after 9-11, that the Bush administration would continue to cover this up.
Please enlighten me.
It is my dearest hope that your child-like faith in our leaders is justified.