Agree (eom)
them, we'd have no whistleblowers. But that is exactly what they are trying to do to Clarke.
The most telling thing is that instead of focusing on the substance of what their accuser says, they attack the accuser personally. I think this will backfire on Bush and his people.
For example Cheney saying Clarke was out of the loop while Rice says he was involved in every meeting that was held about terrorism, or by claiming meetings never took place and later proven wrong.
but that does not excuse anyone from listening to the entire story, or anyone condemning Clarke. He has brought forth some serious information that, whether true or not, needs to be addressed.