Quote:
Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
How so? It seems the ST has made a prima facie case he is not qualified, based on the diploma mill certificate, lack of government experience, his coffee slinging background, and the fact that his defenders argue not that he is in fact qualified, but that he hires people who could potentially cover his ass. Not to mention the numerous examples that have come to light recently of Bush administration cronyism and in light of the Harriet Miers' nomination.
Oh, and can we see the resumes of his competent staff too?
|
What is ST's experience to make such judgments?
Why, what gives you oversight? It's my understanding that is performance has been uniformly sound and commendable, I will let him address your defamation as he will in due course.
