Burden of Proof
If Richard Clarke's allegations about the Bush White House are false, they should be demonstrably so. Dr. Rice should be able to produce documents that show that her meeting with Clarke wasn't the first time she ever heard of al Qaeda. Paul Wolfowitz should be able to point to memos and minutes correcting the charge that he did not take the threat of Osama bin Laden seriously and was more concerned about non-existent Iraqi terrorism against the US. Richard Hadley should be able to show, with official directives and memos and follow-ups, that the White House did indeed hear and respond to Clarke and Tenet's warnings about al Qaeda as they claim they did.

The response we are getting instead strikes me as further evidence that Clarke must be correct, and they must be covering up. Attacking his motives, and feeding the press snide one-liners ("This is Dick Clarke's American Bandstand. He just keeps changing his tune," spokesman Scott McClellan said.) should send a red flag up to those covering this story. If they had the goods to refute him, we would hear about it. This is not a case where the prosecution bears the burden of proof. With the nature of the allegations, if he's wrong and they were in fact taking terrorism seriously, not pushing war with Iraq, there should be the records to prove it.