ABC News has a piece that reminds me of the members of this board who say that we should not accuse W of lying because he has not been convicted by a jury of his peers. Ignoring for the moment that the reason W hasn't been convicted might be because lying is not a crime, I still find that "defense" of W odd. It sets such a low bar, as if being a non-criminal was all you needed to meet the supposedly high standards of this administration.
Well, the Inspector General at Interior seems to have similar reservations:
Quote:
...Earl Devaney, the inspector general of the Department of the Interior, will give a blunt assessment of the level of ethics there in testimony to be presented to a congressional subcommittee Wednesday.
"Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior," Devaney will tell the subcommittee, according to an advance copy of his prepared remarks obtained by ABC News...
|
Full story:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2427096&page=1
09-14-2006, 10:02 AM
Honus 
Threaded Mode
