RE: Thom's post:

I think it's pretty clear from your analogy that both the viscous terrorists who committed the crime and (to a lesser extent) those who may have known something that could have prevented it, but didn't deserve punishment. I think you're right. The public hearings do come at a sort of convenient moment, but that seems natural to politics--the right dirt at the right moment. Your question seems to imply that there is something inherently dishonest about the hearings; that there is some liberal hand at work orchestrating at least the timing. If the hearings are honest and the timing is not, have the politicians who controlled the timing done something unethical by waiting for the most damaging moment to release the hearings to the public? Those who control the timing (if indeed there are such people) are likely genuine in their desire to see if someone in Bush's administration is at fault for the attacks. Shouldn't we admire their cunning in bringing these questions to light at just the right moment? Shouldn't we admire Bush's move for move, bold defense, allowing the hearings to be public hearings? He's playing political games as much as they are. Thoughts welcomed.