Former President Bush gave a public speech which included his thoughts on the Obama-Cheney enhanced interrogation dispute:
Although he did not specifically allude to the high-profile debate over President Obama's decision to halt the use harsh interrogation techniques, and without referencing Cheney by name, Bush spoke in broad strokes about how he proceeded after the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in March 2003.
"The first thing you do is ask, what's legal?" he said. "What do the lawyers say is possible? I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives."
But Bush avoided the sharp tone favored by his former vice president in recent weeks, and went out of his way to stress that he does not want to disparage the new president.
"Nothing I am saying is meant to criticize my successor," Bush said. "There are plenty of people who have weighed in. Trust me, having seen it firsthand. I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best."
The first thing you ask is what is legal? The first question ought to be, what makes sense?
FWIW, the NY Times reported a more sensible process, although it went awry at certain points:
When Mr. Bush assigned the C.I.A. with the task of questioning high-level Qaeda captives in late 2001, the agency had almost no experience interrogating the kind of hostile prisoners it soon expected to hold.
It had dozens of psychiatrists, psychologists, polygraphists and operations officers who had practiced the arts of eliciting information and assessing truthfulness. Their targets, however, were not usually terrorists, but foreigners offering to spy for the United States or C.I.A. employees suspected of misdeeds.
Agency officials, led by Mr. Tenet, sought interrogation advice from other countries. And, fatefully, they contacted the military unit that runs the SERE training program, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency, which gives American pilots, special operations troops and others a sample of the brutal interrogation methods they might face as prisoners of war. Mr. Tenet declined to be interviewed.
I don't know which foreign countries they would have contacted, but Israel has the most obvious experience with Islamic jihadists, and yes, Israel seems to favor enhanced interrogation.
The first thing you ask is what is legal? The first question ought to be, what makes sense?
Uh, don't think so. First you ask "what are the possibilties and what isn't possible" which would include "what would not be legal."
Then you think about what the best choice is.
I think Bush has you on this one.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 29, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Maybe I'm being a bit ornery today, because of the bad weather, both actually and rhetorically, but when you conducted transactions, you checked what was legal right.
Posted by: narciso | May 29, 2009 at 12:59 PM
What makes sense is to take the Sheikh out back, outside the view of prying eyes, and beat him senseless until he coughs up info that saves American lives. That isn't legal, however, hence Bush asks the right thing first.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | May 29, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Nice to see you, hrtshpd. Any chance you could get some new wishlists going?
Posted by: Elliott | May 29, 2009 at 01:12 PM
Bush treats the question of whether a technique makes sense as a given. He had already concluded some techniques made sense so he didn't ask for example, "Would it be legal to send detainees to the space station for interrogation?"
Posted by: Original MikeS | May 29, 2009 at 01:17 PM
It may be a good idea for Bush to ride above the fray on all this knowing full well he has Cheney doing the dirty work. That way he maintains the image of being supportive while he is in the "President's club" of which he will have a new member in a few years named 0bama. Cheney can spread the joy for him.
Posted by: Mickey | May 29, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Elliot, you have some kind of steel-trap memory. Nice to see you, too. Just on the fly, I'd like to wish that Roland Burris inadvertently reveals something that is so embarrassing to O that even the MSM can't pretend otherwise. If that wish gets any footing, I'll supply some more!
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | May 29, 2009 at 01:22 PM
--Trust me, having seen it firsthand. I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor.--
Is that a fairly clever way for Bush to criticize his predecessor while making Barry look like a putz for criticizing his, or am I giving Bush too much credit?
Posted by: Ignatz | May 29, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Ignatz, we've been led to believe Bush isn't that clever. It was a well deserved dig at JC and Bill C.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 01:33 PM
What were the wishlists about, again?
Posted by: narciso | May 29, 2009 at 01:41 PM
Ignatz,
You can add Goober to Bubba. President Bush's remarks are completely consonant with the manner in which he conducted himself during his Presidency. Some might feel that his prudence gave gutter trash such as Bubba (and Ogabe) too large and easy a target but at least we had an occupant of the Oval Office for eight years who was guided by more than windsock polling.
The contrast with the current "what can we get away with today" scum is rather stark.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 29, 2009 at 01:49 PM
+1 clever.
+2 southern snark. Man, he's married to a Texas chick: Barry better hope she doesn't decide to eviscerate him with niceness.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 29, 2009 at 01:53 PM
"What were the wishlists about, again?"
I think I wished for a couple of things that then happened (in retropsect, too bad I didn't just wish for O to lose).
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | May 29, 2009 at 02:07 PM
OT,
RUSH just mentioned this piece from Andy McCarthy and he is going to read it in a minute on the radio. It's very clever:
Forget Whether She Qualifies as a "Racist." Would Judge Sotomayor Qualifiy as a Juror? [Andy McCarthy]
Posted by: Ann | May 29, 2009 at 02:08 PM
That piece by Andy McCarthy is so reasonable and logical it could resonate.
Posted by: Extraneus | May 29, 2009 at 02:25 PM
Lumber is up from 170 to near 200 in 3 days. WTH is up with that?
Posted by: Pofarmer | May 29, 2009 at 02:28 PM
Someone just asked me the following question. Can I get some help in answering it?
(Where is Sue)
What does Cheney's integrity consist of? How has he demonstrated
that quality?
Posted by: Jane | May 29, 2009 at 02:39 PM
What does Cheney's integrity consist of? How has he demonstrated
that quality?
In spite of dibbing and mudwrestling JOmers openly stated interest in Mr. Cheney, he has not taken advantage of our youthfullness and naivete.
Posted by: bad | May 29, 2009 at 02:46 PM
I've never heard Cheney espouse a position he did not believe in, have you?
I've never heard him make a cheap shot, have you?
I think his positions have been consistent and credibily argued, haven't they?
I can't imagine him pulling a Powell-Armitage back stab, can you?
Posted by: clarice | May 29, 2009 at 02:46 PM
If lefty journalist were able to dig up inconsistent positions taken by Cheney, we'd be watching or reading that stuff multiple times daily.
Posted by: bad | May 29, 2009 at 02:51 PM
The first thing you ask is what is legal?
Tom, that derisive question really defines the current admin perfectly.
Although I think they would add:
WTF?????
Posted by: bad | May 29, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Yay for Clarice!
(and, I liked bad's answers too - quick thinking!)
Posted by: centralcal | May 29, 2009 at 02:56 PM
Typhuspad ate my comment.
If journoList could find quotes or video of Cheney in inconsistent positions we'd be watching or reading that stuff multiple times a day.
Posted by: bad | May 29, 2009 at 02:59 PM
Jane, one obvious recent piece of evidence is that Cheney is willing to allow the facts to speak for themselves as to whether EI was effective, as he has consitantly claimed.
Ibama, in contrast, has made the statement that waterboarding three scumbags under the strictest of legal and medical supervision has "made us less safe" dozens of times without evidence. He now has the evidence to prove himself correct and Cheney a fraud if he wants to by releasing the memos Cheney has asked for, yet somehow he doesn't want to do so, even though he's already released the details of the techniques, clearly more damaging to national security than some memos that won't testify to positive results. This indicates Ibama's lack of integrity, and solidifies Cheney's.
Cheney's consistency is also clear evidence of a person of integrity, now that I think of it. One could easily draw embarrassing contrasts to Ibama, other Dems and many Republicans, since very few people have ever been as consistent as Cheney, or Bush, especially under such fire as they experienced.
Posted by: Extraneus | May 29, 2009 at 03:00 PM
...he has not taken advantage of our youthfullness and naivete.
How do we know that?
Posted by: Extraneus | May 29, 2009 at 03:02 PM
I also liked Rush's question:
Does Sotomayor believe that she, as a Latina, would make a better judge than would a black man?
Posted by: PaulL | May 29, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Jane should probably make sure that she and her friend can agree on the definition of the term first...
Dem: Pelosi has “more integrity in her pinky” than Rove, Cheney
Posted by: Extraneus | May 29, 2009 at 03:05 PM
--Lumber is up from 170 to near 200 in 3 days. WTH is up with that?--
Good question Po. The recent housing data has been slightly positive, but with the emphasis on slightly.
Perhaps the inflation winds are sweeping into all sectors of commodities?
Barry's closing of the Tongass NF, as chronicled by daddy, is reminscent of the early 90's NF shutdown which precipitated a spike, so maybe that's a factor.
Or maybe it's just taking off after a respite; went from 145 to 185 in a couple of months, then settled in at 175 for a spell.
Whatever the cause, it's bad for lumber buyers I know, but good for me. Sorry.
Course it's still in the pits even at $200.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 29, 2009 at 03:14 PM
Ha, great question, PaulL.
In the spirit of DoT's mention of how all attorneys are "high-powered" and "prominant," regardless of their sleaze quotients, I've often wondered, after many times hearing such references, if there any experiences "richer" than those of Hispanics. Does a Pole have a "rich" experience by virtue of being a Pole? How about a Singaporean or an Egyptian?
Since we've somehow conferred the term "race" to the experience of being Hispanic -- when it's clearly not a race at all, but a language, and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with race -- maybe it's the language that's particularly rich? Should we concede that anyone who speaks Spanish, or whose parent(s) or even grandparent(s) speak Spanish, has had a "rich" set of life experiences by definition?
Posted by: Extraneus | May 29, 2009 at 03:16 PM
...he has not taken advantage of our youthfullness and naivete.
How do we know that?
Several reasons, take your pick.
1. No one has bragged...with pictures or otherwise.
2. We respect his marriage and would refuse if tempted 'cause we're strongly principled women.
3. Sue would kill us.
Posted by: bad | May 29, 2009 at 03:22 PM
Sorry, I just screwed up the thread.
Posted by: bad | May 29, 2009 at 03:23 PM
--Pelosi has “more integrity in her pinky” than Rove, Cheney--
Wouldn't it be nice if someday it spread from her pinky to other areas such as her brain or perhaps her character and personality, as occurs with adults like Rove and Cheney.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 29, 2009 at 03:24 PM
Time
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:29 PM
For
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:30 PM
A
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:30 PM
New
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Page
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Please
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Please!
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Ten to go?
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 03:33 PM
Judging by which Bush decisions on terror Obama has kept and which ones he has not he went for political PR over safety. Everyone forgets that is Exec. order "banning" "torture" left the door open for it. Google Jack Bauer Exception WSJ to see what I mean.
Posted by: Harrison | May 29, 2009 at 03:35 PM
Pofarmer,
"Lumber is up from 170 to near 200 in 3 days. WTH is up with that?"
Last night I linked this">http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/811178.html">this ADN story, detailing how Obama has just enacted a moratorium on Logging roads into the 49 million acre Tongass National Forest where the article states this move "will have the most immediate effect in Southeast Alaska, where it's likely to slow or even halt four timber sales in the Tongass National Forest, the nation's largest, which encompasses much of Southeast. Sales scheduled for this summer would have allowed the building of about 35 miles of logging roads to access the timber."
So, 4 timber sales already almost done deals in the largest forest in the US were just squelched by Obama. I have no experience in how commodities pricing works but if I was going to begin to search for a culprit responsible for a drastic immediate rise in limber prices, yesterday's squelching of these 4 Lumber deals in the Tongass would be where I"d start.
Posted by: daddy | May 29, 2009 at 04:12 PM
Sorry Ignatz,
Hadn't read your comment yet. My bad.
Posted by: daddy | May 29, 2009 at 04:14 PM
Cheney gave potentially millions of dollars worth of Halliburton stock options to charity in 2000.
When he was SECDEF, he cancelled one of his own pet projects because it was too expensive [unfortunately also classified]. Despite working on it, I agreed with him.
He didn't parade or dis his lesbian daughter when it might have done him good.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 04:16 PM
Compare that with Jim Webb and his son's boots. No doubt some people thought he supported the war effort.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 04:18 PM
Sue would kill us
Smart answer, puppy.
Cheney's integrity is in his core beliefs. For saying what he believes and believing what he says. How he treats his wife, and there is no doubt Lynn Cheney loves the man. Don't say something about him around her unless you are willing to taste the tip of her rapier. His loyalty to the man he served, even when the man was doing something counter to what he would have done. Not once did he try and undermine Bush during his second term when clearly Rice, not Cheney, had Bush's ear. For giving to charities even in years he isn't running for office. The list is longer, but I'm in a time crunch at the moment.
Posted by: Sue | May 29, 2009 at 04:20 PM
"than Karl Rove and Dick Cheney possess in their entire body"
The two-headed hydra (or are they in a SSM?).
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 04:21 PM
Maybe GWBush was referring to his father.
I think of a politician as having integrity if he has a very clear understanding of what he believes in, and if his words and actions are invariably consistent with those beliefs. I think Cheney surely qualifies if that is the standard. Paul Wellstone did, too.
Barack Obama doesn't come close, in my mind--the many instances of his adopting the very Bush policies he excoriated on the campaign trail settle that question decisively. One or two instances might be excused by his suddenly being confronted with the realities of governing, but we have far, far too many of them to support that explanation.
His speech a couple of weeks ago (I think he was in New Mexico) in which he railed against deficits was almost creepy in its disconnection from the very things he is actively doing. I really can't think of anything Obama believes in other than the grandness of Obama. It would never occur to me to say such a thing about Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 29, 2009 at 04:22 PM
DoT:
I really can't think of anything Obama believes in other than the grandness of Obama. It would never occur to me to say such a thing about Dick Cheney.
A man of Cheney's stature and experience and accomplishment, a lifetime of working not pontificating, of accomplishing without self-promotion, of serving without ever talking about it for the sake of promoting himself above his core beliefs ... just exudes humility.
In contrast, Obama very much likes to puff himself up with grandiose words of his own profound humility ... that just reeks.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 04:48 PM
The dictionary.com definition of integrity is:
Didn't McCain spectacularly expose just the opposite in his opponent's public-funds flip-flop? And he didn't see, and we still ain't seen nothin' yet.Posted by: Extraneus | May 29, 2009 at 04:53 PM
Thanks guys. I agree with all of that.
Posted by: Jane | May 29, 2009 at 05:02 PM
I threw in Paul Wellstone just to make clear that I don't see it as a virtue unique to conservatives. George McGovern might have been a better example. Harry Truman, at least after he went to the White House. Ronald Reagan absolutely in spades. Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon--what is the opposite of integrity?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 29, 2009 at 05:23 PM
Bill Clinton consistently believed in the goodness of Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 05:29 PM
what is the opposite of integrity?
outegrity?
Posted by: Original MikeS | May 29, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Time
For
A
New
Browser
DrJ
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 29, 2009 at 05:56 PM
DoT:
I threw in Paul Wellstone just to make clear that I don't see it as a virtue unique to conservatives.
I think Joe Lieberman is as good an example of integrity as anyone.
His running mate on top of the Dem ticket in 2000 is as good an example of utter lack of integrity as anyone, by a country mile.
Seriously, the road those two have taken since that election speaks volumes to each's integrity.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 05:57 PM
And I say that as one who opposed Lieberman's domestic policies upwards of 90% of the time.
He staked a position on the Iraq War out of integrity, and kept it even in the face of political defeat, losing to Ned Lamont in the Dem primary of 2006 and campaigning with McCain in 2008.
He's a "let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may-pol, firedoglake-and-their-blackface-be-
damnedutterly humiliated...Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 06:02 PM
LOL, JMH! Which one?
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 06:09 PM
I threw in Paul Wellstone just to make clear that I don't see it as a virtue unique to conservatives.
Very fair. If everyone had integrity and was up-front about their true positions, we could get by just fine. At this point in our history, unfortunately, this is sadly lacking in both major political parties, and we're probably not going to get by just fine at all.
Except on St. Jane's Island, where the warm breeze blows and the ladies wear their diamonds or shells with integrity.
Posted by: Extraneus | May 29, 2009 at 06:16 PM
Lumber is up from 170 to near 200 in 3 days. WTH is up with that?
O is pissing off the Canadians, housing sales are up, summer is coming.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 29, 2009 at 06:21 PM
If Ibama had any integrity at all he would thank Bush and Cheney for their policies regarding the war on terror, and apologize for his campaign rhetoric against those policies he has now taken as his own.
Obviously, that will never happen.
Posted by: bad | May 29, 2009 at 06:24 PM
Bad:
If Ibama had any integrity at all he would thank Bush and Cheney for their policies regarding the war on terror, and apologize for his campaign rhetoric against those policies he has now taken as his own.
Even I don't expect this much.
Just acknowledge that foreign policy is hard, the war on
terrorman-made disaters is ever harder, and that where Bush was right, he would adopt sensible policies, even if it contradicted campaign speechifying.Of course, I think that would also be in the long-term sensible position of an incumbent seeking re-election, so I'm divided.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 06:30 PM
so I'm divided
So become hit or run.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 06:38 PM
Oh, I'll still hit and run, if need be.
In fact, I'll hit, hit, hit, hit, and then run, if need be. Or hit and return fire, if need be.
Or hit and sustain fire, if Obama's policies necessitate doing so.
But my dividedness only preceeds a decision, and that decision won't be dividedness.
How's you're neck of the woods? My in-laws were thinking of moving to your neck of the woods this year, before I informed them that my position here was tenuous last year, that is....which proved prophetic.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 06:53 PM
I'm a little worried. I think I understood what hit just said.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 29, 2009 at 07:02 PM
First question I ask (the the circumstances that existed) is: Will it work?
Posted by: Captain Ozone Layer | May 29, 2009 at 07:14 PM
They probably thought you didn't want them nearby.
Labcorps is doing ok (if they left, downtown would be a Labcorpse), but the rest of the county has 12% unemployment. In the 70's, it was 20% for years, mostly because women stopped wearing hose. I think some of the Mexicans have left (I'm across the street from the Catholic Church).
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 07:16 PM
Forget that worry, Ignatz.
Consider this...if I could Hillary-Clintonesque "restart" at this point in my life/career, I would work for you.
I mean, I'm inferring, what someone who worked for you would do...ask Clarice...I wield a mean chainsaw.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Ralph:
They probably thought you didn't want them nearby.
Forget it. Even this past week I saw some single family homes near Myrtle Beach in their price range and suggested the look into it...
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 07:29 PM
Now that's different. Please introduce me to your inlaws.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 07:50 PM
OK, fine, a Friday night special...http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/29/carl-levin-cheneys-lying-about-the-cia-memos-that-allegedly-prove-torture-works/>from Hot Air quoting Carl Levin:
Won't somebody waterboard the hell out of the likes of Carl Levin who would willingly conflate approved CIA interrogations with "pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib"?!?!!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!?!?
Carl Levin, the face of which is the corn in my stool*, should not be allowed such leeway unchallenged when it comes to our national defense.
--------------
*the Tuesday night dinner at Myrtle Beach included canned corn as the side dish. "Levin" showed up late Wednesday, in the spirit of TMI.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 07:57 PM
Here's the "face" of the interrogations championed by Dick Cheney.
Library Tower Los Angeles.
Posted by: Original MikeS | May 29, 2009 at 08:11 PM
If anyone needs evidence of Dick Cheney's integrity, all that is necessary is to take one look at how Liz Cheney turned out.
Same goes for Lynn Cheney, too, of course.
Posted by: PD | May 29, 2009 at 08:49 PM
Tell me one bit of polling data that would cause Cheney to change his public stance (which is, I maintain, his core belief).
Halliburton is reviled!
CIA interrogation tactics are being pilloried by politicians and the MSM!
Scooter is indicted! And convicted! (of having a memory that contradicts the impeccable Russert backed up by a drunk Andrea, MIA Gregory, and missing FBI notes, but still)
Bush is unpopular!
The Iraq War was for oil!
Cheney eats babies!
And once now no longer running for office, he's changed what? Does someone, somewhere think that Cheney really cares about "protecting his legacy"? Hell, we've been reminded endlessly that he has a ticker that could give at any moment...and we're supposed to think that he cares what the solons in DC or the Upper East Side or in Berkeley think of what he did in protecting the nation?
Puuuhhhhleease. People who think such think waaaay too much of themselves.
He will continue to do what he thinks will help protect this nation -- now as a private citizen, but no less out of a perception of civic duty.
I swear to God, if there is any way, in all my travels to the Jackson Hole area (we're on the Idaho side of the Tetons, to be precise, so in specifics, opposite of where Cheney's place is), that I can ever find myself on the purchasing side of a beer (or iced tea or even a glass of water) for Mr. Cheney, I will. It may chagrin some in my family, and some more than others, but...I have a way of getting what I want. And there are few things I want more.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM
OMikeS: I'll match your library tower, and raise you a Wachovia Building. And if I had more guts, I'd post it
with a caption.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 29, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Enhanced interrogation techniques. How interesting!
Tell me about the Saudi religious police and their unethical (most real thinkers call it criminal) questioning of modern Islamic women who choose to ignore the anti-feminist strictures of the war-lord who called himself the prophet Mohammed.
Tell me about the interrogation techniques employed by the criminal Castro, Kim Jong il, Hamas and Taliban regimes.
The bottom line is, should we ever listen to a long list of liberals who were part and parcel of the Stalinist coverup of the extermination of Ukrainian peasants in the early 1930's. The line of BS from those folks doesn't differ by much from the line of BS from today's liberals on GITMO and torture. Pinch (or is it pimp?) Sulzberger -- I'm waiting for your reply!!
Posted by: Mescalero | May 29, 2009 at 10:52 PM
DrJ:
I'm afraid my Mac based advice wouldn't do you much good, but I'm confident someone else here knows which PC browsers are still plagued by persistent italics, etc. and which aren't. Before the last couple of updates, I used to have to switch from Safari to Camino when that happened. It would be nice to think that someday, maybe someone will put everything I want in the same app!
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 29, 2009 at 10:54 PM
hit-
He frequently goes to Kelly. I know. I used to see him there when I was up from Boulder (WY, not CO). A very generous man with his time. I miss those days. Sen. Simpson was nice to me as well. Shook hands, firmly, and looked you in the eye to get your "measure".
I was lucky to be there then. My old boss moved from Boulder to Wilson.
(And I promised to do some more work for you, my boss was in all week, I'm back on it this weekend.)
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM
JMH,
I'm afraid my Mac based advice wouldn't do you much good
That's very true. Opera does not suffer from italicitis, but the rest of my browser brood (four of them) all do. And traditional PC-based browser advice would not help any either (I don't use Windows either).
This really is a TypePad problem, though I grant that passing the buck does not help any.
Posted by: DrJ | May 29, 2009 at 11:12 PM
OK, THis site won't refresh anymore so I'm crashing.
G'Night all and I hope Sat. iis better.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 29, 2009 at 11:26 PM
If any of you want to place bets for the upcoming NBA championship game, just ask me who I'm rooting for and vote the opposite. I never, ever, ever, pick the winner.
Posted by: Sue | May 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM
In fact, it might be a good way to finance our island adventure.
Posted by: Sue | May 29, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Wilson rocks. There was a JOM lurker who posted a few times who lived near Wilson. I'm gonna go find the name -- and his invitation to buy me a beer. IIRC, he lived not far from Cheney.
Go google go.
And yeah, Kelly. There is the warm springs where Jackson residents dump tropical fish. Kinda creepy to see some of the mutations in the springs. But you don't get better views of the Tetons than you get in Kelly.
Pic: Gros Ventre Rd., Antelope Flats Rd. Jct.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM
JMH, the lighting makes it look less like a giant white dildo.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 29, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Well since I'm following Ralph L's post, anyone want to take a stab at what "Grand Teton's" means?
Posted by: Daddy | May 29, 2009 at 11:49 PM
I won't attempt any more links to past threads with multiple pages, but, Mr. Ryan, of Wilson, WY...your comments in early Feb of 2007 have never, ever been forgotten.
Posted by: hit and run | May 29, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Daddy:
Well since I'm following Ralph L's post, anyone want to take a stab at what "Grand Teton's" means?
Uh, they were named "Flaccid Tetons" before Cheney arrived?
Wait. Only Bad can get away with such jokes, right? Oh, no, it needs Sue's approval because of the subject matter.
Carp. Where's the JOM stylebook when you need it?
Withdrawn.
Posted by: hit and run | May 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Wiki: Early French voyageurs gave the name "les Trois Tétons" (the three breasts)
Holy Carp!
Grand Teton is a single peak. Tetons is the range.
Posted by: Ralph L | May 30, 2009 at 12:22 AM
OK, one more and I am off to beddy bye. Fair warning, it's late.
Grand Targhee ski resort -- located in Wyoming and in the Tetons, but only accessible by road from Idaho -- had to drop the word "nipple" from Mary's Nipple, a back country summit at their resort in the early 2000s, due to patronage complaints.
True story, that.
But...off we go...word from Targhee, however (my brother was forced to retire from the resort last year due to a chronic shoulder injury): Helicopter rides over the peak still are available to provide aeriola views.
Posted by: hit and run | May 30, 2009 at 02:01 AM
had to drop the word "nipple" from Mary's Nipple
That sucks.
Posted by: daddy | May 30, 2009 at 02:14 AM
Tsk, tsk. You guys are lucky Clarice is out of town.
Posted by: Extraneus | May 30, 2009 at 08:19 AM
...raise you a Wachovia Building.
Thas swat I'm talkin' about!
Somebody should give Carl Levin a good bitch slappin'.
Posted by: Original MikeS | May 30, 2009 at 09:09 AM
Extraneus:
You guys are lucky Clarice is out of town.
Oh, gosh, you're right. I almost forgot...
HAPPY BIRTHDAY WOLVERINE!!!
Posted by: hit and run | May 30, 2009 at 09:43 AM
"The first thing you ask is what is legal?"
Tom, that derisive question really defines the current admin perfectly.
Although I think they would add:
WTF?????
I think they might say, "What means this word 'legal'? It rings strangely upon our ears."
Posted by: PD | May 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Hit, your canned corn comment almost made me fall off the chair from laughing, but you were too kind to Levin. I can't believe he said that. History will not be kind to him, if it ever remembers him, which I doubt it will.
I've flown into Driggs and driven through much of the beautiful area you call home. My parents have a vacation home just around the corner from Cheney's house. I've never met him, and only seen his convoy a few times, but my parents are proud to be his neighbor.
Posted by: stace | May 30, 2009 at 09:24 PM
Awesome, Stace...it really is such a beautiful place, isn't it.
Posted by: hit and run | May 31, 2009 at 08:57 AM