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?

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