When he shows up again, do we have to address him as "Your Magnificence"? Because that could get old.
So he was here back then. And back there he said something that came true now. And nobody's seen him recently.
This is fishy. Veerry fishy.
Is there some kind of hymn one could hum? In praise, I mean?
I dunno, dude. I just woke up on the couch here. Can't remember a thing OR find my socks.
Hugh Hewitt is most likely responsible. For the socks, at least.
This is fishy. Veerry fishy.
You think he's trying to horn in on your business, Froz?
There's a lot in that post that's either myopic or just plain wrong, especially bits like "only one person could have broken the law," which shows an incredible lack of understanding of the IIPA, and "I believe Novak's story," which shows a lack of paying attention - Novak has presented many contradictory versions of "his story," each one less plausible than the last, and even in October of '03 this was already apparent.
From there on the post becomes a note-for-note rehash of the conventional wisdom of the time, including "only Novak knows who the leakers are," which in and of itself ignores the fact that by then we knew that the two "senior administration officials" had already shopped Plame around to a number of other reporters, including Tim Russert. By now, of course, we know about Cooper and Miller, too, who all look to be key witnesses for the prosecution at this point. Beyond that, ogged gets the timetable wrong on Rove's involvement, and predicts that Rove is pretty much in the clear.
So what events of today were predicted with any reasonable accuracy, other than "Scooter Libby's in trouble"?
His Magnificence is entertaining in many ways, but is unerringly off-the-mark when it comes to politics.
Is "Isle of Toads" some sort of anagram or acrostic for "Brokenhearted Swedish Grad Student"?
I've clearly missed the in-joke on that one. Can I get the cliff's notes version?
So what events of today were predicted with any reasonable accuracy, other than "Scooter Libby's in trouble"?
Not exactly a prediction, but this part of ogged's comment to the same post rings true:
In fact, I'd say this blog is unusual in how often the commenters disagree with me.
two "senior administration officials" had already shopped Plame around to a number of other reporters, including Tim Russert.
Tim Russert: We were subpoenaed at NBC, and myself, in May of 2004. We fought the subpoena and lost.
On Aug. 7, I sat down with the special counsel, under oath, not before the grand jury, and was asked if I was a recipient of the leak. The answer was no. I was asked whether I knew Valerie Plame's name and where she worked and whether she was a CIA operative. And the answer was no. That was the extent of it. This is all confirmed on page 7 of the published indictment.
Mr. Libby had called NBC and me, as bureau chief, in July, not to leak information, but to complain about something he had seen on a cable television program. That was the extent of it.
Toads, why do you put quotation marks around phrases that aren't quotes?
I was going to defend Ogged, but Toads "version" is constructed so misleading that "I" don't feel there's enough there to salvage to "argue with."
"Toads, why do you put quotation marks around phrases that aren't quotes?"
I put quotes around "senior administration officials" because that's exactly what Novak called them.
And Michael, have you read the actual indictment yet?
I never thought I'd say this, but I almost miss the swarthy little twat.
And Michael, have you read the actual indictment yet?
Is this question in relation to anything in specific?
Nobody else wanted to help out the poor n00bz0rz on 13, so: The complete story.
The rest, as usual, is commentary.