Steel, I'm noy saying it should be taken as gospel or that it shouldn't be subject to intense scrutiny once done. Just to be fair, I can understand why you could be skeptical of ANY entity hired by ANY government agency to check out their practices. On the other side, WMI took the job knowing that their work would be under a microscope. All I'm really saying is that it's not fair or even helpful for anyone on any side to claim either a biased or anaccurate result till it's been produced for proper scrutiny.

To use your example in reverse, The pool scene from caddyshack comes to mind. Who knows maybe it will be a dog turd, but lets not drain the pool till we make sure it's not justa Baby Ruth