Of course, they've had their heads in the sand for years and the view is not very good from down there.
Discussion is locked
Several of the companies involved are turning state's evidence Mark -- his days in power are numbered.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
first of which is that it is not surprising that you have to ask--situaional is not the norm.
Second because the "scrupulously neutral chairman" wans't any such thing.
And third because the ethics chairman was deemed not suitable for the task for other reasons also in the opinion of the majority party and like it or lump it that is what counts and determines chairmanships.
Want to expound of ethics and Jeffords in the same breath as you tried to in the past regarding another chairmanship?
Dave? The boys who gave you Watergate, and the Iran Contra scandal and the never ending, ever expanding, focus always changing Whitewater Inquiry, and the stolen 2000 election and the entire George W(itless) Bush Presidency? Please tell me this post is just an ironic look in order to highlight their hypocrisy.