I think to keep it honest he should appoint Jimmy Carter,and to keep it interesting Al Frankin,and to be fair how about being as fussy as they were with Bill Clintons investigation!

Truly interesting would be to appoint both Al Frankin and Bill O'Reilly [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

LOL and the results probably won't be available til after the 2004 election according to the TV news.

Rokenn,Now that would be something to watch!

This is like Saddam himself hiring his own weapons inspectors.

Though personally, I think we should choose a VERY comical combination, turn on the cameras, and make a show of it.
Michael Jackson, Pat Robertson, Eve Ensler (The Vagina Lady), Wanda Sykes, and the Fab Five, on a search for truth!

[ 02-02-2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

I can already see any efforts will meet the same fate that the recent Blair investigation met: claims of a whitewash.

There's just no pleasing some folks. Such is life.

I found this opinion piece concerning this topic noteworthy:

Link

[ 02-03-2004, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

That could easily be avoided by having a multi-party panel overseeing the inquiry, rather than appointing your own man...

That could easily be avoided by having a multi-party panel overseeing the inquiry, rather than appointing your own man... </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I doubt that, <font color=white>Skunk</font> - although I agree it would lessen the number of such allegations and would certainly make the proceedings appear more impartial. Many of the liberals are already accusing the Democrats in Congress of "rolling over and playing dead" when it comes to opposing Bush...and MANY are convinced that Bush is guilty before the investigation starts.

So even if he DID assign a multi-party panel to head the investigation, ANY verdict other than guilty will lead to accusations of a whitewash by those that feel Bush is guilty no matter what.</font>

I have no problem with the way Hutton conducted his investigation Timber, I just think that the evidence he was found simply doesn't lead to the conclusion he has drawn. Thats not an opinion I come to as I was already convinced but because I can look at the evidence that is in the public domain and make up my own mind.

I should also stress that even if I were to agree with Hutton, and Blair, that the intelligence was correct about WMDs then I don't think we should have gone to war in the first place anyway. And a lot of anti-war people felt the same as me, so I don't think the opposition is a matter of saving face as much as you seem to think.