[GoGophers]

THey're not investigating the possibility that the WH may have misled the nation. They're trying to gin up the appearance that the WH misled the nation, and they're abusing their positions on the committee to do it.

How do you differentiate between the two perspectives (investigation versus witchhunt)?

[alnick]

They've already made the accusations. They've stated the conclusions that they wish to reach and laid out their plans to try to come up with dirt on the president.

If they were trying to do the jobs with which they've been entrusted, they would go through the intelligence with an open mind, rather than going through it for the sole purpose of finding something to use as a weapon against the Commander in Chief.

[AzJohn]

How do you differentiate between the two perspectives (investigation versus witchhunt)?

The interim report has not even been written at this point, and yet the staff member is writing about how to present "our case" as "additional views" on the interim report and the final report. Also, note that the author considers it a foregone conclusion that there will be a split with the majority at some point that will prevent further cooperation on the committee.

[Col Freeper]

How do you differentiate between the two perspectives (investigation versus witchhunt)?

It's really quite simple, you consider what facts you know about the individuals involved.

It would appear from your postings on this thread that you believe that the democrats are only after the truth.

I guess you're drawing upon past events, you know, like when the democrats really, really, really wanted to dig out the truth about Clinton during his impeachment (they did support full impeachment "investigations" didn't they?).

IMHO, the democrats have absolutely no past reputation for truth, or sufficient morality to act first as Americans, and second as political partisans.

I'm still trying to figure out whether you're a TROLL or just an anti-Bush poster.