snood wrote:Scrat - maybe since you, McG, sofia, Max and only a couple others are the only ones who I perceive as somewhat sympathetic to the conservative side of things, I thought I'd ask you if you see anything suspicious, since to ask those whom I agree with would be a little boring to me.
I suppose I didn't frame the question in a way that was palatable to you, and maybe that seemed like it was laying a trap, or something.
If you can get over my loathesome boorishness, do you think you might bring yourself to addressing the issue I asked about? Maybe if you just pretend you're talking to someone who addresses you with the degree of respect which you require, instead of me, you can overcome my appalling faux pas.
Snood - I was out of town on business last week and barely had a moment to peek in here. Now that I do--and looking at this with a fresh set of eyes--I see that I may have taken your original question the wrong way. I get a lot of crap from certain parties here who love to tell me what my opinion is and then attack that rather than asking my opinion and considering it, so I took your choice to ask me what I thought of something when I hadn't commented on it to be an attempt to imply what my opinion was, rather than a genuine question as to what I thought.
So, I owe you an apology for assuming the worst intentions in your question. Mea culpa. I was being a dick.
That said, let me go back and look at what the question was again... (looking...)
Quote:This, from a Washington Post Editorial by E.J. Dionne:
"The commission investigating 9/11 criticized the administration for failing to respond expeditiously to its requests for documents and testimony. Tom Kean, the Republican chairman of the commission, also charged that the administration's refusal to allow witnesses to be interviewed without "minders" amounted to intimidation. Kean and his Democratic co-chairman, former representative Lee Hamilton, are among the most respected and least partisan figures in American public life. If they are complaining, something is definitely wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40913-2003Jul10.html
Wha'dya say, McGentrix; Scrat? Anything seem wrong there to you?
Well, having paid no attention to this subject at all, I'm not sure my opinion would be of much value, but here it is:
I don't find much but rhetoric in the above. What is an "expeditious" response and who decides how long it should take? Who chose the word "minders"? It's a loaded term. Why would that be "intimidation"? Intimidating to whom, and how so? Who says Kean and Hamilton are "among the most respected and least partisan figures in American public life"? I know nothing of either, so have no reason to assume this is true or is not. Lastly, the statement that "If they are complaining, something is definitely wrong." is absurd.
So, all in all my opinion of the fragment you cited is that it brings up a lot of questions but answers none of them, and seems intended to leave the reader convinced something sinister has occurred or is occurring, without actually offering any evidence that such is the case.
c.i.
