>>And this is bad... how?
>
>What I was pointing out is that Conyers not only very liberal, but very vocal. You can spin that however you like.

I don't see "liberal" as bad per se. For me, that means only "a little less to the right than GOP". For you, it's obviously a four letter word.

As for spin, I've found a lot of soundbites where "liberals want terrorists to win" etc etc, from the lowest end of the propOganda food chain, and I have no doubt where that was coming from.

>>>The report was released by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff - not a joint committee, but a purely political one.
>>
>>AFAIK, last few times the Reps were invited to form a joint committee they refused. And even a joint committee would be a political one, you know. It's about politics.
>
>The House Judiciary Committee IS a joint committee. This "report" was published by only one part of it.

Again - why didn't the other part refuse to cooperate? Surely they'd want the truth to be known and doubts to be dispersed.

>>It's a simple step - from "we won't play" to "they're playing alone". Very simple. You only have to forget to ask yourself why did the GOP refuse to play. What did they have to hide?
>
>Or perhaps you should ask yourself why this appears to be a Democrat-only report. Or, more appropriately, a Conyers report (since he apparently is taking credit for it).

It WAS Konyers who started working on it - I've read the first editions at least a year ago, and it was probably longer in the making. So credit where credit is due - and I see that he got many more people to join him and help the investigation effort. That's leadership, the way it's appreciated here.

>A little early in the day to be on the attack, don't you think?

Yes... you should have expressed the will to read it before I reacted.

> Despite the fact that I don't trust Conyers, in the interest of fairness I intend to read the report.

Enjoy.