Here's an interesting stat:
Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.
In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Also, a story on how Bob Woodward has failed us all.
Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors.
In the past two years, a House committee has managed to take only 12 hours of sworn testimony about the abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Also, a story on how Bob Woodward has failed us all.
posted by Chris at 10:34 PM
2 Comments:
I sent this to a buddy of mine and he replied with:
"I am not sure we can really
compare these, based on the info here, as they are two different things. I
would have to know how many people were considered to be involved in both. I
would think there were more people on the Christmas list than were part of
the abuse of prisoners. that might explain the differing hours of testimony
that was obtained. also the army morons would have certain rights under
military and constitutional law that would probably allow them to avoid
testifying against themselves. sounds like another smear campaign to me. not
sure how they can compare the two just based on the number of hours of
testimony."
For crying out loud.
I...I'm at a loss for words. I wouldn't even know where to START to respond to that.
And we wonder how these people got to be in charge of the government.
Posta un commento
<< Home