Cheney claims that Clarke "wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff''.
What does it say about the priority the administration gave to fighting terrorism if its anti-terrorism czar was kept "out of the loop"?

Bush was so unfocused on terrorism, that on 9/11 he could only hop on Air Force One and flee deep into America's interior.
....................................................................................

Jim, don't worry about your parents. Bush will carry Texas (and Utah) no matter what. lol

Fox News may try to discredit or ignore Clarke, but he is still getting a good amount of favorable, or at least neutral, exposure in the mainstream media. People who watch Fox are predisposed to believe Bush propaganda anyway.
Half of last Sunday's 60 Minutes was devoted to Richard Clarke. The former anti-terrorism czar came across as credible, knowledgeable, and strong.
A majority of the text of the piece and several video clips can be found here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

When Clarke is allowed to speak for himself, he is formidable. And he will be in the media quite a bit in the next few weeks because of his testimony before the 9/11 commission and because of his book tour. Chances are good he will be on Nightline soon.

Speaking of the 9/11 commission, the NPR station in Champaign-Urbana will carry Clarke's testimony live on Wednesday (March 24th). I don't know what time Clarke goes on, but coverage starts at 7:30 AM (Central Time) and can be heard here:
http://will.uiuc.edu/am/ramfiles/livewill.ram

....................................................................................
This is the issue which will make or break Bush. The bottom line is that he is running on his record on terrorism. Social security, gay marriage, tax breaks for the rich, and unemployment are all peripheral by comparison.
Even before Clarke's revelations, the Bush-Cheney-Rove campaign was planning to launch an ad blitz designed to make Kerry look weak on defense. But Kerry's votes on (sometimes) obscure legislation will seem trivial when compared to the Bushies' pre-9/11 arrogant negligence.

The Democrats have to relentlessly hammer away on this. Stay on message, avoid side arguments on petty details, and don't let Republicans change the subject.
The GOP has used such methods to successfully get their message across, but are we up to it?

Kerry should really pick up on this one. It seems this administration will never admit when it's wrong and will not take responsibility when it makes a mistake. And if you dare leave the Bush White House and tell what went on in there you face personal distruction.

I've posted this about a million times. When Bush came in, he totally deprioritized anti-terrorism, and he focused the entire national security appartus on missle defense. 9/11 was the result.

WhoMe's right. Bush ignored terrorism for nine months- and then, when buildings were burning and Americans dying, he continued to ignore them, sitting on his butt reading books with little kids.

I had hope someone would bring up another possibility: that not only what Chaney was correct about 'out of the loop' because that specifically implies something altogether different. Considering the 'Special Plan Group' and what has been revealed so far, perhaps another policy- and decision-making group altogether.