"HK" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:25:36 -0700, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


why gas is up to $2.50 again.

That would be because you live in Connecticut. ;-) It's still right at
$2.00 hereabouts.

I filled up Yo Ho's tank yesterday, 71 gallons at $2.05 a gallon.

Was $2.32 at Costco today in Livermore, CA.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:29:30 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:25:36 -0700, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


why gas is up to $2.50 again.

That would be because you live in Connecticut. ;-)

That's the freakin' truth.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:13:28 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


So itÂ’s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can
never
be used. But when youÂ’re in the foxhole, itÂ’s a very different deal."

Senator Chuck Schumer, June 8, 2004

What would Schumer know about being in a foxhole?


At least as much as Cheney.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:18:47 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:13:28 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


So it?s easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can
never
be used. But when you?re in the foxhole, it?s a very different deal."

Senator Chuck Schumer, June 8, 2004

What would Schumer know about being in a foxhole?

Got me - I assume that he knows if he said it. :)

The point, I think, is that the CIA and the Bush administration got
much different feedback on Congressional expectations for securing the
nation from another devastating terrorist attack.

That mandate got reinforced in Congressional briefings on the EITs,
where people like Nancy Pelosi not only never objected, but some of
them asked whether the CIA was being tough enough on Abu Zubaydah,
Ramzi Binalshibh, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The only one who did
object is Jane Harman and she said so openly.

If accountability is to be imposed, let it be imposed across the board
- let's not single out the Bush Administration if it's found to be a
criminal action.

Hyprocrisy on this issue is rampant. Compare and contrast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bg6Zs6vcws

On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:30:21 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


If accountability is to be imposed, let it be imposed across the board -
let's not single out the Bush Administration if it's found to be a
criminal action.

Works for me, but, frankly, I'd settle for just Cheney. The SOB just
can't seem to keep his mouth shut. Oh, and I'm still waiting for
Hannity's waterboarding for charity. That would be pay for view at it's
finest. ;-)

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:30:21 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


If accountability is to be imposed, let it be imposed across the board -
let's not single out the Bush Administration if it's found to be a
criminal action.

Works for me, but, frankly, I'd settle for just Cheney. The SOB just
can't seem to keep his mouth shut. Oh, and I'm still waiting for
Hannity's waterboarding for charity. That would be pay for view at it's
finest. ;-)


Kind of funny that Tommy wants to spread around "punishment" for
decisions entirely within the purview of the Bush mis-Administration.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:50:31 -0400, HK wrote:


Kind of funny that Tommy wants to spread around "punishment" for
decisions entirely within the purview of the Bush mis-Administration.

If laws were broken, I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy. Hang 'em all.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 11:48:50 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:30:21 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


If accountability is to be imposed, let it be imposed across the board -
let's not single out the Bush Administration if it's found to be a
criminal action.

Works for me, but, frankly, I'd settle for just Cheney. The SOB just
can't seem to keep his mouth shut.

You can't just single him out, assuming that this is found to be
criminal. Anybody who knew is complicite in their silence - that is a
simple truth proven by the Nuremburg trials - the fact that you knew
and didn't object is not a defense. I believe that there is also US
case law that supports that view.

Expect this to die a quick and quiet death because if it doesn't,
we're going to be without a large number of Congress critters in the
future.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for Hannity's waterboarding for charity.
That would be pay for view at it's finest. ;-)

I don't know anything about that, but if he made the offer, he's an
idiot. It's not a pleasant experience.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 14:32:02 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


Works for me, but, frankly, I'd settle for just Cheney. The SOB just
can't seem to keep his mouth shut.

You can't just single him out, assuming that this is found to be
criminal.

The thing about Cheney was mostly tongue in cheek. I have mixed emotions
about going after these guys. I don't feel the need for prosecutions,
but it is a democracy and we need to know what happened to keep it from
happening again. These guys, ill-advised as they were IMO, were working
for our benefit. I don't need vengeance. I just need it not to happen
again. But Cheney should keep his mouth shut.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 12:30:21 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


If accountability is to be imposed, let it be imposed across the board -
let's not single out the Bush Administration if it's found to be a
criminal action.

Works for me, but, frankly, I'd settle for just Cheney. The SOB just
can't seem to keep his mouth shut. Oh, and I'm still waiting for
Hannity's waterboarding for charity. That would be pay for view at it's
finest. ;-)

We'll shut Cheney up if you shut up Al Gore.