That's a rouse, a sham by Pitt, an attempt at PR.
Many will simply construct deniability. Many will, however, take a much closer look at their checks and cross-checks, and less of a blind eye on any of the profitable crooks they used to ignore. But there are much more substantive things Pitt could do, of course, which he won't, since he was hired to protect Bush Inc.
The real confidence-builder is to have real investigations of the egregious crooks that so strongly appear to be protected by the Bush administration: ENRON executives, open up the secret offshore accounts, disclose the Cheney meetings, and let the chips fall where they may on Halliburton, et al.
Answer to your question: sure, I would, and make sure each reporting to me did the same, as well as being aware of cross-checks and balances to see what is out of whack. If I'm exposed to wrong-doing by a subordinate, I'll take my chances that I can prove it was not at my doing. |
