~> ~>>  Further, contrary to your pretension, the waterboarding is not
~> ~>>  just done with a canteen cup, but can be done with a watering
~> ~>>  can.
 
~>  EC> Another parody of a response.  You dishonestly slip in a
~>  EC> word that I did not use -- "just" -- in an attempt to
~>  EC> refute something I didn't say.  And then you dishonestly
~>  EC> OMIT  a word from the Bybee memo in an attempt to make the
~>  EC> difference between "cup" and "can" look
greater: what he
~>  EC> said was a "SMALL watering can!"
 
~>  You dishonestly suggest I
~>  "slip"ped in a word, when I just plain outright used the word to
~>  describe what you said.

I did not "suggest" it.  I proved it.  You made something up, you
attributed it to me, and you are unable to defend yourself by quoting where
I said "just" a cup.  I, on the other hand, easily substantiated your
OMISSION of the word "small" to describe the use of a watering can.  All I
had to do was quote your words and quote the memo.

~>  And since I did say they did pour it into his
~>  open mouth and nose, your false accusation is more obvious.

Lest you completely obscure the context of this, I was pointing out the
differences between what was done to the radio shock-jock and what the
approved procedure was.  There was no "false accusation," it was not you
but ME who pointed out that the water was poured into his open mouth and
nose, and it was done with a gallon pitcher rather than a cup.  By the same
reasoning that was used to claim that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times
(which was actually 83 pourings of small amounts of water) you can feel
free to claim that the radio guy was waterboarded 16 times in six seconds.


 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a