On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:25:15 -0400, Bill Shanks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:39:58 -0700, John Clogg <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Yosef gives one paraphrase of the articles; let me offer another.  The
>Levin, and especially the McCarthy pieces make the point that having a
>person who was instrumental in creating policy that contributed to the
>intelligence failures of 9/11 should not be a member of the commission
>investigating those failures, due to conflict of interest.  This is basic
>Ethics 101 stuff, and I find it difficult to find fault with that premise.
>While some might argue that the policy decisions were not contributors to
>the problem, the fact that such a question is being considered is enough to
>create a conflict of interest.
>>
>>John Clogg
>>
>
>As I understand it according to the news, Ashcroft's people endorsed, in
>writing, the very same legal position that Gorelick took, some time before
>the 9/11 attacks.  While this does not address the ethics of her being on
>the commission, it does show that Ashcroft did not tell the whole truth,
>only the part that made Gorelick look bad.  Typical.
>
>When asked why he insisted on Cheney being with him in front of the
>commission during his "news conference", GWB did not answer the question
>(twice).  Typical.  What's he afraid of?  Hard questions?
>

Bush, afraid.
Oh no. can't be!! Remember he is a war-president and flies in fighter-jets.
;-)

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *