The police would hide.  Literally, it would be rob any bank you want day, so long as it's on the other side of town from the million armed marchers.

And by the way....We could put Swords Crossed on the blogmap if we want.  just start a petition asking Texas to secede from the Union.  You'll get every DKossac & RedStater over here signing the damned thing.

 is the bigger question?

  Also if you believe Nancy should be fired, then why would you not want Cheney, Addington, and the rest of the crew to be fired.

 Or would you chose to defend Cheney's authoring the memos, over Nancy's allegedly hearing about them?

that's given to our Congresscritters & Senators can not legally be shared with ANYONE.

And when the NSA tells you anything in private, that's National Security data.  If Nancy had said anything to anyone, then Nancy would have been the one to go to jail.

One good thing did come of it all though.  With the revelation that Harmon was in cahoots with the AIPAC boys, that effectivly killed her chances at becoming Chariman of the House Intel Comittee which obviously makes our government a whole bunch safer right there.

Now do I wish that Democrats had broken that law and told Americans what the bush43 Administration was doing in their names?  You're damn right I wish they had.

Because once again you are mistaken.

In an article from Tuesday we find otherwise.

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.
 
The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.
 
“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo.
 
“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”
 
A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

I'd much rather see a straight carbon tax myself. I'm not really sure why cap and trade seems to be the more likely to pass. :(

Disclaimer: Everything written below assumes that the above article is meant to be a criticism of Obama administration policy.

GR, I hope you realize that this opinion piece (like most of the WSJ opinion pages) are not written to persuade people -- they are written to fire up the base. Anyone who reads this opinion with a skeptical eye will be thinking "BS!" every other sentence.

First, this article is written as though there is no value in reducing CO2 emissions.

Second, the author claims that this tax is regressive:

Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent;

So what? Just the other day I read a WSJ editorial whining about how Obama wants to soak the rich. Maybe after reading this article, right wingers will understand that Obama is not implementing a robin-hood scheme to steal from the rich and give to the poor. He's just another establishment politician who is trying to manage society (and pay off his supporters).

Third, the author explicitly contradicts himself:

The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680 [per household]...

vs.

Mr. Obama wants to recycle $525 billion through the "making work pay" tax credit that goes to many people who don't pay income taxes. But $400 for individuals and $800 for families still doesn't offset carbon's income raid

Last time I checked, $680 was well within the $400-800 range.

 Also, I think the formality of getting to sixty seats, is something that may hurt Dems more than Republican, as now they are seen as responsible for everything. They already basically had this, but  now they no longer have the option of blaming slow progress on obstructionist Republicans.