There's always the amnesia defense. I find it incredibly scary that these are the people who were selected for their positions because they were highly qualified (i.e. "competent"), yet they have the memory spans of goldfish (random trivia - pregnant goldfish are called "twits"). How could these people be trusted to run the country when they all apparently suffer from Alzheimer's?
And I don't buy into the crap about this being a witch hunt. Accountability of the executive branch (or of the government at all) is NOT a witch hunt. Perhaps the apologists should stop attacking the people asking the questions and instead starting challenging those who were asked the questions to answer them fully and honestly. Perhaps every step this administration takes is looked upon with strict scrutiny because so many of the previous steps turned out to be deceptive. And perhaps, had this administration exercised its oversight somewhat more effectively in the six years of unquestioned governing, it wouldn't be subject to external oversight now.
2 comments:
I will give Sampson credit for appearing, at least. I too was struck by his lack of experience for this particular job. He tesitified that he had been second chair in the trial of a few civil cases and prosecuted one criminal case. Gulp! Hey, everybody starts somewhere, but you don't go from there to Chief of Staff to the AG of United States! Not in the "real" real world! Pardon me for putting it this way, but Sampson couldn't carry Bud Cummins OR Carol Lam's ox box.
And I didn't mean to reroute from Lurita. Sorry! My assumption before looking at the Polman link made an "ass" out of me - but not you!
Man. Throw another one on the pile. I heard on NPR this morning that Henry Waxman wants Rove to testify about this one too. What do you think the chances of that are?
They are good at the amnesia defense as well as one of the favorite defenses of a former prof of mine: the "too busy" defense.
Post a Comment