SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: boris_a who wrote (127832)3/30/2004 3:07:00 PM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
What did you ask? The Clinton policy was being followed until the Bush policy was completed.



To: boris_a who wrote (127832)3/30/2004 3:32:51 PM
From: Rascal  Respond to of 281500
 
...And then there's this, also from Al Gonzales' letter to the Commission ...

I would also like to take this occasion to offer an accommodation on another issue on which we have not yet reached an agreement - commission access to the president and vice president. I am authorized to advise you that the president and vice president have agreed to one joint private session with all 10 commissioners, with one commission staff member present to take notes of the session.
Is that an 'accommodation'?

Why is this is a joint session? Why can't the president and the vice-president meet with the Commission members separately? Is there some, as yet unexplored, constitutional issue of the president and vice-president needing to appear jointly?

I hesitate to assay some jesting constitutional theory (the two jointly elected constitutional office-holders must appear jointly because they were elected jointly?) for fear that it might end up in Gonzales' next letter.

One can speculate about several reasons -- one in particular -- for making this stipulation. And, in addition to having no conceivable constitutional basis, none of them are flattering...

talkingpointsmemo.com

Rascal @Edger&Charley.com