Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I mean, c'mon. This HAS been the national debate for months. As in most such circumstances, people's readings of and conclusions about the events and statements simply ended with what best served their pre-existing philosophical wants and needs. You've already noted the problems of a panel of pols doing this - why do you think that any conclusion wouldn't simply be determined by the political mix of members? Or that, given an equal split of seats, we'd have two conflicting sets of conclusions?
|
There are sources for less biased views, and there have been panels that struck me as being significantly less political. Certain events deserve an airing that is at a higher level.
Are we simply conceding that the inquiry into 9/11 is going to be a hack job where Ds and Rs jockey for political gain? That's what it looks like right now.
