Before I begin to reply I have to say what should be the most interesting aspect of our discussion is that we are closer than we are farther apart in how we view things.

Yes, I feel we strongly concur in our beliefs that honesty, integrity, and accountability have systematically been removed from their rightful seat in politics, and should be returned ASAP. Civility has taken a back seat to partisan barbarism and bickering, and we both realize this drives a wedge into the heart of this country. If only politicians would realize that constructive debate and unbiased consideration are far more productive than the destructive, no-holds-barred, succeed-at-any-cost approach we see today. Evil begets evil, and the more each side alienates the other, the harder it will be to ever return to civility. The Republicans are guilty of this, as are the Democrats...they both know its wrong, but their stubbornness outweighs their convictions.

Ok, in this respect, we are both correct. The subject of the memo is not that the Bush Administration lied, but was drafted as a response to the Democrats' belief that it did so, and their desire to promote that idea to the American public at a critical time in an election year.

I can see that as a reasonable meeting point. I'll only add so that it's on the table and I'm being up front that I do believe the Bush administration has been quite dishonest. Probably, that is understood at this point anyway.
   
As far as this dishonesty is concerned, I would like to go further into that in another post soon. Its something that has left me dumbfounded. I actually could not believe that the administration was under any type of investigation for "lying" or "deceiving" the world so we could go to war. Maybe we can start another thread laying this case out on the table where we can debate its merits. I would like to see your viewpoints, and those of others so I can understand where this stems from.

This is an interesting viewpoint that shows the difference in our stance. You feel that they released this memo under the pretext that they do have "the goods".

This is true. I do think they have probably seen enough information at this point to make that determination. I believe that there is certain etiquette that even during these bizarre times they adhere to and I think they are being careful how they handle this situation.

Here, we can agree to disagree. We really don't know, so its all speculation at this point. It will be interesting to see what mud flies during the campaign next year.

I feel that they released this memo to bring this issue to the forefront during an election year with an independent investigation because they do not have "the goods".

Well, you're saying that you believe the Democrats leaked this memo then. Or am I missing something?

No, it was bad wording, lapse of concentration, brainfart, whatever. I meant that the motivation behind drafting the memo was to bring the independent investigation and the supposed lies and dishonesty to the forefront next year...to make sure all party members would comply in accomplishing this task during the campaign next year. I didn't realize how it read with the word "released."

I certainly would have to say that, yes, you are correct if you say the Democrats want to bring up whatever they've got during an election year...ahh, no argument from me on that...Republicans would do the same if they had it. But I am leaning more toward the idea that they do have something...I think the tone of this memo...which supposedly was meant for Democrat eyes only, indicates they know there is something there.

And I am not sure on that. Of course, at this point, its all speculation. I feel that the summary of the memo simply re-iterates what they "believe" not necessarily anything that has been uncovered or proven. Only time will tell...

Now on the subject of who actually leaked it...Dems or Republicans...well that is a curious issue...because it's a matter of who has more to gain and what they may be setting up for a bigger play later...I can't say I really could make a solid guess yet. I will say this about the memo...the first thing I thought when I read it was it was sort of idiotic...and more than a little...ahh, for lack of a better word...dramatic. So, I'm not sure why it was written in the first place or who wrote it. It sort of stinks like propaganda...and I'm not sure because it seems on the surface damaging to both sides...who might have more to gain from it. So to some extent I think we...and I mean you and me here Chris...are being made the fools with this thing. It's hard to say why it exists but there is no doubt that it exists to be discovered. I don't think it's at all an accident that it was written or that we've been able to read it...it never is. See what I mean? I was reminded of the "Protocols Of The Wise Men Of Zion" to some extent. It does after all allude to this evil plot being hatched to...well you could argue...take over the free world...as that's what the American presidency represents.

Hmmm...who leaked the memo? I agree that looking at who had the most to gain may point to the culprit, however, I disagree on your assertion that it is damaging to both parties. I don't see any endangerment to the Republican party other than allegations of thievery. The memo was leaked directly to the Sean Hannity Show, which means it immediately was rushed to the ears of conservative America...knowing that this outlet would surely portray the memo in an anti-Democratic light. This alone, leads me to believe the memo was not intentionally leaked by the Democrats. That and the fact that Rockefeller is so upset that it was leaked. However, if, as you suggest, the Democrats did leak the memo, they are to be commended in doing so in such a way to avert suspicion. And if continuing on that scenario, you are correct that we are all being taken for a ride.

I do, however, feel that it is too damning to the Democratic party to exist for the sole purpose of being "discovered." If this is not from Rockefeller, or not part of a true agenda being pursued by the party, it is likely from some political aide who was naive enough to first, write this politically-incorrect memo, and second, allow it to be leaked.

On another note, could you elaborate a bit on your "Protocols Of The Wise Men Of Zion" statement? Just curious what significance that plays. Disregarding the fear of sounding ignorant, I have never heard of it.

I guess its a matter of trust at this point since no one but those on the committee actually know the facts. Personally, I don't trust that they have any substantial evidence, yet plan to make a media frenzy out of nothing just to hurt Bush.

I don't trust either side at this point and think we have to play the waiting game because they are both playing for such high stakes. I do believe that there's plenty of evidence available to them though...we're always the last to know what it is though.

I have distrusted the Democratic party since the Clinton years, but as of late, have begun increasingly distrusting the Republican party in some ways. Its a lot easier to trust those who 'supposedly' have the same belief structures as you (ie. conservatism), than those who do not. I would prefer a complete turnover of all members in politics at all levels of government. We can all dream. Too may career politicians who "know the ropes" and thus have sold their souls to the gods of special interest, minorities, or business. You never know which lobby is going to buy which pay-per-bill legislation each session.

I honestly feel they would do anything possible...honest or not...to get their man in the White House. Of course, you probably feel the Republicans would do the same to keep their man in the White House. Its this distrust that makes us disbelieve everything coming from the other side...not that this has anything to do with the truth.

Yes, I feel both sides will do whatever they think it takes. Sad, but for me, true. I don't really disbelieve everything but I do think you have to look at what purpose their actions or words serve.  It's not always clear but sometimes the murk can be revealing as well.
   
Agreed. You just can't take anything at face value anymore. There always is a driving motive...and more often than not, its purely partisan, regardless of which side.

Here is my problem with content of the memo: It suggests that an independent investigation has already been planned,

Not really, but it says they are certainly willing to go that route.
   
True, but what intrigues me is that they would already consider that when the findings from the current investigation must first be proven invalid or flawed. They either automatically assume this is the case, or could care less, and do the "other" investigation anyway. This is my issue...that they will do it right before the election, and the results probably won't surface till after the election, but the investigation itself is just a partisan tool to deceive the public...regardless of its validity or result.

which leads me to deduce two logical conclusions:  

1. The current investigation has not uncovered any damaging evidence.
The simple fact that an independent investigation has been planned, or is even being considered, begs the question "Why?" It can only be explained by one fact: they believe that the current investigation will not result in the outcome they want, and thus, will exonerate the administration; therefore, they need another investigation with an alternative result.

Well, I'd have to say that the reasoning may be that they have evidence to support their allegations and they may be chasing down leads to force the majority (Republicans) to have to confirm this evidence. If this memo can be taken at face value, then I'd say they more than likely have their claws in something. The memo also alludes to there being some roadblocks being thrown up to stop them from looking in certain places. Are we to take that at face value or ignore it? Also if this is to be taken at face value, they state at the end in the summary that they feel a responsibility to expose this dishonesty. It's actually odd the way it reads...as if it was written to make us think certain things and not really written for an already bloodthirsty bunch of coconspirators.
   
And this is where our ignorance (you and I) in the matter makes us a possible pawn in their game. We will be feed what they want us to hear, and at the time they choose. I personally have no choice but to distrust anything they say. I feel that the Democratic party is so desperate to cling to what little power they still have, they will resort to despicable tactics to do so. The party has just snapped now that it has been backed into a corner. Of course, that's my opinion, but I have deep convictions as such. I am sure you feel that Republicans are running rampant and out of control (which on some issues, I will agree), but I always thought the same of the Democrats when they were in power.

As for roadblocks, I think they are referring to the daily terror briefs the President receives. These have not been turned over to the committee (unless it was done recently) for fear of national security. I will admit that I am torn on this issue. We have no idea what is in those briefs. If there was one document that was most likely to contain the most top-secret information concerning national security...very sensitive data, this would be it. So I can understand the hesitation to release this information. However, I can also understand the opposing position where this hesitation could be construed as "stonewalling". Its so difficult to form a sound opinion on this when we don't really know all the facts. I wish we did.

As far as your opinion on what that it wasn't written for a "bloodthirsty bunch of coconspirators", I disagree. The tone of the message is almost vengeful. At least that's what I infer from it. Like this is driven by hatred for the administration, not sincere concern for national security. This memo could not exist if the committee was truly sincere about the best interests of this country. This memo exists out of pure partisan animosity alone.

If the committee investigation has uncovered extremely damaging evidence, there would be absolutely no need for an independent investigation, and hence, no need for this memo. The bottom line is, they obviously are not happy with the progress of the current investigation.

 I don't actually see any need for this memo at all...with the general understanding that there are always leaks...and they are always intentional from my perspective...why put something as stupid as this in writing. It expresses very little that could not be said in a 30 second conversation. It's not understood...well at least by me...what the current status of this investigation is so who knows. I would say there are far to many oddities that exist though to say there was not some sort of issue that the Bush people would prefer not to discuss.
   
Here, I agree with you, the outrageousness of the memo questions its validity. Who would be this naive? Its just something you don't write down.

2. The Democrats will refuse to accept any findings that do not support their claims, regardless of the validity of the outcome.
By planning another investigation before the current investigation has completed proves that this an attempt to circumvent the system to achieve a political goal rather than a fair and just investigation.

 I can honestly say I think the "purpose" of this whole ordeal is a more than a bit obscure. They have not really planned another investigation...but if taken at face value again...they do say that is an available option in this memo. But the memo, again if taken at face value, is not really a hard plan but some suggestions to be considered. I think all that can be truly assumed is that they want to find a way to get harmful information out on the table and do so at the most critical times...and again I would say according to the summary they believe they have some.
   
 Once again, only time will tell.

The purpose of an investigation is to ascertain the truth. This memo demonstrates an intent by the Democratic party to discredit the committee's current investigation by launching their own regardless of what truths have been uncovered.

Again, I'd say not really. It says they will take full advantage of the chance to add their perspective to the findings...which is acceptable under the rules...and that they can always push for that other investigation...really it seems that idea is all based on the timing of that announcement. I don't think they specifically state they'd like to discredit the current investigation... but I can see how you can make that assumption.
   
Yes, the assumption is made on the premise that the mere existence of another investigation is an implication that the original investigation was invalid.

If the committee investigation is done properly, and finds no "goods" on the President or his administration, there should be no need for an independent investigation.

Here's something interesting to consider at this point and could be a motive for the memo itself. This memo could be evidence of bizarre tampering in itself and be just cause to call for an independent investigation because this one is now corrupt. You certainly could make that argument no?
   
Reg, I must commend you on your insightfulness here. Wow, I never considered that angle. If you are correct, then the Democrats have really outdone themselves. We may have stumbled on to something big here.

The only valid premise on which an independent investigation should be launched is a flawed committee investigation. At which time the committee itself should also be investigated to uncover why it's investigation was corrupted.

See above comment. Now we may be getting somewhere.
   
True, however, I wonder if a party in the investigation, intestinally tainting it, warrants a new investigation? Especially if discovered early on in the investigation, and the "tainter" removed. This goes back to my demand for Rockefeller's head...shaken, not stirred, please.

Otherwise, any subsequent investigation should uncover the same truths, unless those subsequent investigations are flawed.

All I can say here is truth is a slippery slope indeed in Washington.
  
So very true.

At this point, there is no reason to suspect the committee investigation to be flawed, yet they are already making plans to begin another. There is no basis for this except for purely political propaganda. This is where I see the rub. Prove that the existing investigation is biased or corrupt, and I can accept an independent investigation. Otherwise calling the administration a "liar" till you blue in the face is not going make it true.

Hmmm...there now is reason to suspect this investigation is flawed...the memo. Could it be that's why it was written in the first place? Could we have just stumbled on to the reason this memo exists? Funny if we did...though probably not far fetched.

Yes, but if this is the case, as I mentioned earlier, if the flawed investigators were replaced before the completion of the investigation, it would no longer be flawed. Not sure if there is a legal precedent on that...but who knows...this case may set that precedent?

As an additional note, I believe what they want is not an "Independent" investigation, they want a "Democratic" investigation. But that's purely my opinion, and reverts back to the trust issue I spoke of earlier.

Yeah, well trust is not something I think these guys will come by too easily...at least not from me. They've not shown they really deserve it and I mean both sides.
   
Absolutely. I'd trust em as far as I could throw em. And yes, that goes for some members on both sides.

The first part of your argument simply questions whether we should have gone to war in Iraq or not. This is such a grey area issue with no clear right and wrong answer (its based more on opinion at this point), and is a broad enough subject for another topic in itself (not a bad idea).

Well, it is also at the heart of why this memo exists. I also don't think this should be, in any way, considered a grey area...a preemptive strike against a nation that had not attacked us and that our allies did not agree with should leave no room for a grey area...it's gotta be clear cut and it was not. 

And this is one area in which we disagree. Really, I don't want to delve to far into it in this thread because it is such a big issue that it would consume the Wilson issue. I feel we have to look at what we knew before the war. Regardless of anything that has happened from the day we committed to going in, the intelligence on which this war was based is the only thing that should be considered to determine if it was right or wrong. I realize that this intelligence is directly related, in part, to the findings of Joseph Wilson (which we will get to momentarily) and his trip to Africa. But that aside, I think it is obvious that the vast majority of the American public, as well as the members of government, on both sides, felt that what we were doing was appropriate. Let's not get too sidetracked here as I really would like to delve into this one in its own thread. I think we can learn a lot from each other on this one.

Your claim that they will be careful to release the information they have at the time able to do the most damage proves that they are simply politicizing this committee (which has a history of being the most non-politicized of all the committees) and its investigation into our national security for their own personal, and partisan gain.

In all honesty I would say either side would do this given the chance. So, yes, that's probably true.
   
Maybe so, I would like to think that the Republican Party would have a little more integrity than this, but who knows. I do feel a lot of this stems from the fact that the Democratic party has simply not yet adjusted to being the minority. Its much harder to go from being in power to not. The Republicans had been in the minority for so long, that had they still been there, and in this exact situation, I don't feel this would have occurred this way. Granted, thats my opinion, but then again, I feel this is the acts of a desperate party, grasping at any opportunity to hold the ground they have been consistently losing. That explains the Texas runaways, the multitude of unprecedented legal challenges to redistricting efforts across the nation, and the unprecedented filibustering of judges. These things never happened when Republicans were in the minority. Now, the political landscape has changed, probably irreparably, and these actions will now be considered the norm.

I find that absolutely unacceptable, un statesman-like, and abhorrently dishonorable. If you cannot set your party affiliation aside for the sake of national security, you are a disgrace to this country and have no business in politics.

Agreed. The sad fact is this probably includes most of the guys from both sides.

True, my friend. Seems like it will never be the same again.

The fact that this is acceptable behavior demonstrates the enormity of outright dishonor now prevalent in our political system. There truly are no more statesmen...just partisan pawns.

Yup...most of them probably are...which is why the problem is so hard to fix.
   
Too bad we can't resort to the way it was when we were children. We could just call "Do-Over!" and start anew. hehe.

Hehe...the Joe Wilson "scandal"...this truly perplexed me when it blew up in the media. I agree with you that it will probably resurface (without merit), and attempt to create damage, but I also believe the American public could care less.

Well, the first time around they did not seem to care...that's true. But it was sort of a long and confusing story to follow for them. It will resurface in simpler terms I think...meaning this was a crime, this is who committed it, this is what it means...that won't be as easily glossed over. I'm not sure why you say without merit because it is one of the most obvious and overall dumbest crimes any administration has ever committed. Don't forget it's already been established it was someone at a high level in the Bush administration who leaked her name...it's not a big mystery.

When has this been established? Novak quickly debunked the theory that this was an outright scandalous smear attempt. "I did not receive a planned leak," he wrote.

Furthermore, Scott McClellan has said "There has been no specific information that has come to our attention to suggest — beyond media reports — to suggest that someone in the White House was involved in leaking classified information."

This "leak" was a poor judgment call made by Robert Novak to include the full name of Mr. Wilson's wife. Why did he do so? First, we need to look at the intent of the column. The purpose was to discredit the Yellowcake investigation by Joe Wilson in Africa by submitting that his wife had recommended him for the position. This introduces the illegal aspect of nepotism which would accomplish the goal of discrediting his research, albeit only somewhat. The name was used for this purpose, and this purpose alone.

Furthermore, if you scrutinize the text that supposedly identifies an administration official as the source of the name, you will see that is not the case. The text in question is this:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."

Examining these two sentences closely makes it clear that he wasn't naming the two administration officials as the source of her name. They were the source of the claims of nepotism. I could be inferred that they were the source of the name, but Novak explicitly stated the opposite in the quote I mentioned above on this topic.

Also, when asked if the leak went up to high levels in the White House, Joe Wilson stated, "No, on the contrary, I don't have any specific information. I would hope that an investigation would yield the information as to who was responsible for the precise leak."

Additionally, this calls into question his immediate, passionate condemnation of Karl Rove as the leaker, after which he recanted, "In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long  ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove. I think I was probably carried away by the  spirit of the moment." He then confessed, "I don't have any knowledge  that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the  authorizer of the leak." He went on to say, however, "I have great confidence  that, at a minimum, [Rove] condoned it and  certainly did nothing to shut it down," but, as has now established, had no evidence to back up such beliefs. Not to mention that prior to this whole fiasco, Wilson had been quoted as saying it would be his life's mission to, "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

As I already stated, I feel it was a poor decision by Novak to use her name. It was no-doubt wrong, but there is no evidence to indicate Bush or his administration actually did this. Yet the media grabbed it, and demonized the administration over it, without having all the facts.

It is extremely far-fetched to even suspect that Bush had anything to do with this. I will grant you that it is possible that someone in the administration could be guilty, but to blame Bush himself is ludicrous.

I think it's only fair to say at this point I don't really believe Bush himself is responsible for much because I think Cheney is the guy that pulls all the strings. I really believe Bush is just a front man.
   
Hmm, never heard that said. In that respect, are you then implying Cheney was complicit in outing her name?
 
You state that the way Bush handled it was "shameful", and that he displayed a "lack of outrage". How so?

Easy, the leak came from his people. The reporter said so. It was never disputed.
   
Novak himself (the reporter) disputed it in a follow up article. The quote I presented earlier is from this article. He denies it was from the Bush Administration. 
   
It destroyed the relationship between the CIA and the current administration because it destroyed any trust that may have been there.
   
How did it destroy this relationship? If the administration was not to blame, no harm (to the relationship) was done.

It was outrageous, unethical, stupid and the most harmful breach of National Security that could have taken place.
   
This, I agree with, he should not have used the name. Doing so was irresponsible, and unnecessary.

It made our government look asinine worldwide due to the fact we'd out one of our own agents so how do you think that made us appear in the eyes of other intelligence agencies in terms of looking for their cooperation.
   
The actual events that transpired did not make our government appear this way, the media's frenzy over such a non-issue, however, did.

It's the biggest mistake Bush co could have made and it came from his people...it's a federal crime that requires jail time.
   
First part, I disagree, second part, I agree fully. Whoever did leak the name, if on purpose, should be appropriately dealt with. However, its not like it was a big secret. Joe Wilson's own web site carried her name.

He should have solved the problem in days at the most...at the very least you'd think he would have scapegoated someone...this administration has at least proved good at that...but they didn't.
   
Now this, I did not expect you to say. First, how can you solve this problem in days, if at all? What exactly would you have done different? All records were frozen, full compliance with the DOJ investigation was ordered, and the investigation is under way. What else would you have him do?

It's a credibility issue for them...and now they have none. Meaning it went higher up than they'd care to admit so nothing was said and nothing has been done. Bush smirked his way through it...not too bright really.
   
Or it was nowhere in the administration, and this baseless claim that it did does not warrant him doing more than what is necessary to root out someone who may or may not exist. You must understand that more than 50 of these leaks are referred to the DOJ each year, this one was handled with the most scrutiny and compliance. If you feel he should have started an independent investigation, I refer you again to my prior comments about unwarranted investigations. Additionally, it must be understood that the burden of proof lies with the accusers, not the President.

All this talk of President Bush not doing anything is absurd. Furthermore, to suggest that the administration should have scapegoated someone rises to an even a higher level of absurdity. You would suggest that the administration actually do this dishonest service to an innocent member? First, its cruel, dishonest, and appalling to do that to someone undeserving of such repercussions, and second, doing would be the equivalent of an admission of guilt and just lend undue credence to the claims made against the administration. Its a lose-lose situation. The only way to gain credibility is to allow the justice system to handle this in accordance with the law. Otherwise, any findings will be subject to scrutiny, and regardless of who is found guilty, the media would probably just assume (as you already have) that whoever it is was just a scapegoat.

It actually surprised me that he took it more serious than anyone else in the administration. I thought he would just ignore it, yet he ordered immediate compliance with the investigators. He made a public statement denouncing those that outed her name, and vowed to take appropriate action.

Funny, I'd say he ignored it. That was all lip service. He immediately denied it was Rove...according to a spokesman "because he just knew it wasn't"...that was super dumb and an admission that he (Bush) knew something...and I'm sure he did.

Granted, that statement was not the brightest, but in the context of this subject, the fact that Wilson blamed Karl Rove because he just knew it was him is equally baseless. I guess these two could be said to cancel each other out. However Wilson was forced to recant his statements because the accusation was without merit.

If your comments were directed at the denial of an "independent investigation" then I direct you to my prior comments.

Honestly, if Bush wanted credibility he would have called for an independent investigation himself because he (if you want to believe he was unaware) just found out he had people in his own organization he couldn't trust that just destroyed the credibility of his intelligence gathering efforts. Bottom line is the situation should have been handled quickly...as it appears now it was not a priority to him and nothings been done. Also a big coincidence the Bush administration had been having it out with the CIA...Hhmmm...Don't try and tell me you're that blind to this stuff Chris. I know you're not...it's obvious.
   
As far as credibility, I feel that an independent investigation would send a contradictory message. Just as I feel the independent investigation suggested by the Democrats is their way of ensuring the results would support their preconceived verdict, the media would portray Bush's "independent" investigation in the same light, deducing that any results from it were invalid, and the offender, if found, would be portrayed as a scapegoat. The only way to maintain his credibility is to allow this to proceed through the normal channels. These channels are there for a reason, and it would raise suspicion and lower credibility to circumvent them.

It seems that every time the Democrats think something is awry, they call for an independent investigation.

Come on now the Republicans use that tactic as well. Personally I think I'd prefer an independent investigation whoever it is that's calling for one.

I wish I had been more attentive during the Clinton years so that I could give an educated response to this. I was so disgusted with the whole thing I ignored politics for several years...but I'm back now...

As if we don't already have a mechanism for handling these types of investigations. If this mechanism is flawed, this must be proven, and a new mechanism created; however, this has not been done. I guess they just don't trust the Justice Dept....hmmm, there's that trust issue again...

I'd say it is flawed.
   
I don't know all the fact about the process, the levels to which the information must pass, etc, but if it is flawed, then it should be replaced with another mechanism other than resorting to requesting additional investigations. Every time that is mentioned it makes me cringe. Put in place a mechanism that works...otherwise, why even have a mechanism?

No, not a surprise. The surprise is that they offer no compelling reason for such an investigation. They must first prove that the existing investigation, of which Rockefeller is a major part, is flawed. Otherwise, what is the point? 

Well, that thing was a memo not an attempt to show the current investigation was flawed so it does not argue those points. In fact, it states they are happy with some of the parts of the investigation and the cooperation they had got that they felt was "crucial".

Ok, off the Wilson issue and back on the memo. My take on this is that the cooperation they have received is "crucial", not because they found what they wanted, but because it allows them access to everything they need to discredit this investigation when the findings are not to their liking, and raise their own to discredit the president. Once again...its a trust issue, and I feel they are only stringing those cooperating with them along until they can destroy them.

Regardless of the article, simply reading the memo itself is enough to condemn motives behind the actions it suggests.

Well, I'm certainly not a fan of the memo but I guess you have to ask yourself what is more wrong...writing that memo or manufacturing a war with a country that had not attacked us or anyone else.

Not attacked us or anyone else? Attacked Kuwait in '91, attack their own population on a daily basis. Once again however, this is for another thread.

And while true, Rockefeller never admitted writing the memo, he never denied it either.

I don't know...that's sort of a weird statement...lot's of people didn't deny it does that make them all guilty?

Well, this really goes with the next point I made...so I'll comment there.

When asked point blank if the memo was indeed from his office, all he could say was that it was stolen, and that the theft should be investigated.

I don't recall reading that I only recall reading that he said he didn't write it.
   
He was very upset that the memo fell into the wrong hands. Maybe the point is that he was never asked by the media if the content of the memo was something him or his party was planning. But if my office had turned up a memo that damaging, and exposing that level of dishonesty and corruption, I would denounce it immediately...that is, unless maybe I was complicit with it. But my personal convictions would never allow it to get that far.

He never condemned nor voiced any disagreement with what was in the memo. To me, this verifies his complicity. At the very least, it questions his loyalty, and his fitness to serve on the committee. Had he denied and renounced the memo, my opinion would be reversed, but the fact remains that he did not.

I'm not sure if he's not responsible he's required to deny or renounce anything about it. I think it seems you're looking for a way to hang him on it.

You may be right here. In my opinion (which is all I have to go on in this dearth of facts), he agrees with the content of the memo simply because he never voiced his disagreement. I would expect someone to at least voice their disagreement (should it exist) over any such controversial and condemning memo if it had been leaked. Not doing so leads me to believe either he was the author of the memo, or at the least, concurred with the plan expressed in it.

Well, this has been a very enlightening, albeit lengthy, discussion, but also one of the most thought provoking I have had in some time. Thanks Reg.

-=CE=-