commission? it is also perplexing the way the congressman, who, i am sure, is honorable in what he believes is something there to be investigated. but it is perplexing the way he described something like stone walling. there have been thousands and thousands of documents supplied. that s not most people s definition of stone walling. he said it just in response to a question, that nobody had been held to account. nobody. and in fact, four state officials lost their jobs which does mean somebody was held to account. now you can say they weren t the right people. but that s not the case that we are making. so when you have apparently serious members of congress, either not aware of the facts, or ignoring the nakts. it doesn t bode well for this kind of investigation. just looking at the facts and frying to ma trying to make sense of it. seeing the aggressive act in the house. covering it as news if you think it is the right or wrong thing. to focus on accountability as if
executive editor of msnbc.com. what, if anything, do you take away from that conversation with some one who is on the committee and believes this, this dedicated investigation is still necessary? well, i think the congressman is confused. he doesn t seem to be clear whether this investigation is about what the secretary knew, what the military response could have been, or, in fact, what he said was the tipping point, the tipping point for the whole thing, turns out to be, the white house communications response. that s why his last response was so perplexing. you ask him why are you so interested in the sunday talk show representative for the administration? and he didn t even bother to try to address that? i do think they, we all understand what republicans are trying to do here. there may be at one level, a serious effort to look at security issues. but the debate cannot be stopped in the way they have constructed