BTW Kerry, you accuse Democrats of creating alot of fiction, about Bush's use of the war for election purposes, about, torture...etc. But like the damning comment form Bush's henchman on using Gitmo trials to help Republicans in 2006 elections, below is evidence that Bush and company were the ones directing the Abu Ghraib disgrace that has damaged our reputation and expose the government's massive hypocrisy to the world.

Call It the Abu Ghraib Memo http://tinyurl.com/325hzz

Seems like Democratic beliefs about this administration are becoming less fictitious every day. Although I suspect Bush is trying his damnedest to cover his ass with executive privilege, and document classification.

I read the memo.

So what? It's an advisory opinion. I know you libs don't like to think about it, but in the real world legal counsels have to opine on matters of legality.

I didn't see anything in it to justify your comments.

Kerry,

You don't go skirting around the edges of the law, unless you are attempting to bend or circumvent them. This memo is a mirror into the minds of the administration and what they were hoping to do. Fortunately the courts came back and slapped their hands forcefully. Of course if Bush had his way there would be no court to stand in his way.

"You don't go skirting around the edges of the law, unless you are attempting to bend or circumvent them. This memo is a mirror into the minds of the administration and what they were hoping to do. Fortunately the courts came back and slapped their hands forcefully. Of course if Bush had his way there would be no court to stand in his way."

As usual, you show your ignorance of policy, politics, and law. "This memo" is just that. An 81-page legal analysis of the LEGAL requirements involved with the treatment of enemy combatants held outside the U.S. (that's in the heading.)

I'll leave Sarge to tear you a new one about the rest of it.

Funny Kerry, there has been a lot written and a lot agreed on in the last 100 years about this very subject. We didn't need any more "analysis". The Geneva convention is very clear. But instead Bush made up new words "unlawful enemy combatants", and order new analysis, because he doesn't want to play by the rules everyone else agreed to abide by a long time ago.

"Funny Kerry, there has been a lot written and a lot agreed on in the last 100 years about this very subject. We didn't need any more "analysis"."

Evidently, we did. This is a new situation, and the Justice Department felt the need to have a comprehensive analysis done of the potential situations that might arise.

There's nothing sinister about it. Bush isn't even left-handed.

"this is a new situation".

No its not. Terrorism has been around for as long as human beings have existed. The only thing that is new is we have an administration that didn't want to play by the rules the rest of world played by for 40 years.

Perfect example. The administration has no explanation for why the German Turk profiled on 60 minutes last week was held for 3 years after both the Americans and the British put down in writing that the man was innocent. The only thing that got him free was not American justice. It was the German Chancellor stepping on Bush's head and say what the fuck do you think you are doing.

Frankly anyone involved in deny this man his freedom for three years should be put away for life. Nobody should be able to fuck around with an innocent man's freedom, I doubt give a rats ass what the circumstances are. If you know he's innocent. Let him go, or go to jail.

On a different topic. The question was asked earlier by Kerry, what do higher gas prices do for us, besides make us poor? Well here is your answer.

GM is rolling out an electric car with a small gas turbine engine, that can go 40 miles on its electric motor before using a drop of gasoline, giving the car a fuel efficiency of 150 miles per gallon.

Not like adversity to get us off our lazy asses, and use our brains to make a cleaner, more energy efficient society. Forget the cost savings, just think how much less exhaust this car will produce that we don't have to breath.

This is why progressives will always eclipse conservatives....and have being so each generation since the beginning of time. The status quo is for the lazy, and the dying.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/03/autos/bc.na.fin.com.us.gm.volt/index.htm?cnn=yes

Oh and I should also point out that what GM is doing produces jobs. It just forces those mechanics that want to be lazy to get off their asses and learn new skills...which everyone needs to be doing throughout their lives anyway to remain competitive.

that should be gas internal combustion, not turbine...

I sure hope that car goes more than 40 miles at a time. That wouldn't cover my day.

Its goes forty miles before having to use any gas, not the same as quiting at 40 miles.

Good. How much do you want for it?

Well if it cuts your $40+ a tank gasoline costs by 3/4, cuts America's military costs,and cuts America's health cost because of less pollution, are you going to wrinkle your nose if it costs a bit more than a standard car? There is more costs involved in owning a gas guzzler than just the sticker price on the window....a fact worth learning.

"Well if it cuts your $40+ a tank gasoline costs by 3/4, cuts America's military costs,and cuts America's health cost because of less pollution, are you going to wrinkle your nose if it costs a bit more than a standard car?"

That depends on what "a bit more" means.

Example: the Prius (the environmental car driven by green celebrity snots) and the Yaris (the other one) both get 40 mpg. The Prius costs at least twice as much. Guess which one I bought?

From your link:

"The Volt will be a four-seat car. Not having a center seating position in the back will allow room for the car's battery to run longitudinally down the center of the car while keeping the roof low for better aerodynamics, according to a GM press release. The T-shaped battery will also extend out under the back seats."

So, sorry. I can't buy this car (besides the fact that other sites list it at above 30K, and it has a 17,000 person waiting list). I have three kids, so unless it's not available for the next 5 years (maybe three if the 13-year old gets his own car, which I doubt), this 4-seat car is useless to me. Also, it says it has a low roof. My husband is 6'4". That isn't going to fly at my house (where ARE those flying cars, anyway?)

Back to the drawing board.

Kerry,

To your argument that if we only got rid of the illegals, we'd free up jobs for American's. Well here is ample proof that given the demands of the market (we set the prices of food low enough, American's won't take the jobs), the jobs will remain in the hands of Mexicans, whether they harvest the crops in the US, or in this case move to Mexico to find the workers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/09/eveningnews/main4004958.shtml

Notices the little notice in the video that says despite their demand for workers, farmers can't find at least 30% of the labor they need in either California or Arizona. Translation. American's aren't taking the jobs the Mexican's left behind when they went back home....proof again that these aren't jobs being stolen from anyone. They are jobs we simply won't do for the low wages required for farmers to turn a profit. Time to pay more for your food if you want American's to do the harvesting.

"Time to pay more for your food if you want American's to do the harvesting."

Make it in a lab.