Comments on: Well That Was Interesting… http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/ Firedoglake weblog Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:37:08 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Bob Schacht http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565738 Bob Schacht Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:45:33 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565738 <p>On March 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pm, Raven @ 294 wrote:</p> <p>“Am I the only one here that doesn’t drink?”</p> <p>Nope. Unless you count O’Doul’s as drinking.</p> <p>Hey, anyone else notice that when Vicky Toenails “smiles,” she looks remarkably like a cat. I can almost see the whiskers.</p> <p>Bob in HI</p> On March 16th, 2007 at 2:25 pm, Raven @ 294 wrote:

“Am I the only one here that doesn’t drink?”

Nope. Unless you count O’Doul’s as drinking.

Hey, anyone else notice that when Vicky Toenails “smiles,” she looks remarkably like a cat. I can almost see the whiskers.

Bob in HI

]]> By: diana http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565731 diana Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:38:49 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565731 <p>I’m wondering if I said something wrong… I mean did something wrong when I called VT a bunch of stuff like obstructionist, irritable, annoying, irritating, querulous, bullyng, etc?<br /> I don’t see my comment. (vanity vanity) lol<br /> actually looking for conversation.<br /> Anyway.<br /> She sure was a horror.</p> <p>oops… wrong thread.<br /> duh.</p> <p>Waxman was fabulous.</p> I’m wondering if I said something wrong… I mean did something wrong when I called VT a bunch of stuff like obstructionist, irritable, annoying, irritating, querulous, bullyng, etc?
I don’t see my comment. (vanity vanity) lol
actually looking for conversation.
Anyway.
She sure was a horror.

oops… wrong thread.
duh.

Waxman was fabulous.

]]> By: robinhood http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565684 robinhood Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:15:33 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565684 <p>Not to give Vickie T. any slack, but from a lawyers perspective, she is correct that the key issue is whether Valerie Plame was a “covert agent” as specifically defined under this narrowly drawn criminal statute.</p> <p>That is one obstacle Fitzgerald certainly would have faced in any prosecution of the underlying crime</p> <p>It is not necessarily good enough that Haydn may have characterized VP as “covert” agent generally –that likely has a different meaning under CIA lexicon. Haydn’s statement would help much more if he said she was a “covert agent” as defined under the IIPA.</p> <p>I agree knowledge of covert status would have been an important defense–did Cheny, Libby et.al know that Plame had “served” outside the US within the past 5 years etc. These are the type of details that would have made prosecution of the underlying crime difficult–but it is also why Fitzgerald characterized Libby’s lies as throwing sand in the face of the umpire and casting a cloud over the VP. As Fitz said–someimes the truth removes the cloud, sometimes it doesn’t, but you must have the truth the know. Fitz did not.</p> Not to give Vickie T. any slack, but from a lawyers perspective, she is correct that the key issue is whether Valerie Plame was a “covert agent” as specifically defined under this narrowly drawn criminal statute.

That is one obstacle Fitzgerald certainly would have faced in any prosecution of the underlying crime

It is not necessarily good enough that Haydn may have characterized VP as “covert” agent generally –that likely has a different meaning under CIA lexicon. Haydn’s statement would help much more if he said she was a “covert agent” as defined under the IIPA.

I agree knowledge of covert status would have been an important defense–did Cheny, Libby et.al know that Plame had “served” outside the US within the past 5 years etc. These are the type of details that would have made prosecution of the underlying crime difficult–but it is also why Fitzgerald characterized Libby’s lies as throwing sand in the face of the umpire and casting a cloud over the VP. As Fitz said–someimes the truth removes the cloud, sometimes it doesn’t, but you must have the truth the know. Fitz did not.

]]> By: OhioBlue http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565576 OhioBlue Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:22:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565576 <p>incontext at 373 - I’m sure you’ve been EPU’d, but that was a priceless observation, just priceless.</p> incontext at 373 – I’m sure you’ve been EPU’d, but that was a priceless observation, just priceless.

]]> By: Larry http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565566 Larry Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:17:38 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565566 <p>I did not know who Toensing was until today, and looked up on the internet as much as I could, and it seems to agree with the comments here.</p> <p>Still I think Waxman and his Dems looked rather weak against her. They were not prepared to dispute her idea of covert being different under the Act, which they had to know would be her point, how about a slide with that part of the act? Also cutting her off, made them look bad, though I see the point about filibuster.</p> <p>I thought we knew something about how the info got from the CIA to the White House?</p> <p>Still all in all the Dems made some powerful points, may have lost some for Unnecessary roughness against the white house security guy who seemed perhaps just at unease before a committee rather than inept?</p> I did not know who Toensing was until today, and looked up on the internet as much as I could, and it seems to agree with the comments here.

Still I think Waxman and his Dems looked rather weak against her. They were not prepared to dispute her idea of covert being different under the Act, which they had to know would be her point, how about a slide with that part of the act? Also cutting her off, made them look bad, though I see the point about filibuster.

I thought we knew something about how the info got from the CIA to the White House?

Still all in all the Dems made some powerful points, may have lost some for Unnecessary roughness against the white house security guy who seemed perhaps just at unease before a committee rather than inept?

]]> By: incontext http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565547 incontext Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:09:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565547 <p>I hate to admit my ignorance (and personal meanness of character, and superficiality, and agism and, yes, sexism) regarding one of the current cast of characters in this latest White House coverup, but during a committee break in prep for testimony by Knodell and the other guy, there was this dumpy woman with poor posture in rust 70s stretch pants and a matching fallen do gabbing to no one in particular in front of an open camera, displaying the classic, pretend self-importance of an ordinary citizen impressed by ‘being on TV’ during the committee’s short recess. </p> <p>I had no idea who she was, but she drew my offhand assessment as a mildly neurotic staffer who was soaking up her brief moment in the glitter of a C-span live feed but who’d neglected to obey even minimal fashion and runway tips before facing away from her ‘audience’ with her hand in said stretch pocket, smearing her pants across a Curves™-forgotten derriere for all the world to fight or flee (or confess to masterminding 9/11).</p> <p>You can imagine my surprise one panel later.</p> I hate to admit my ignorance (and personal meanness of character, and superficiality, and agism and, yes, sexism) regarding one of the current cast of characters in this latest White House coverup, but during a committee break in prep for testimony by Knodell and the other guy, there was this dumpy woman with poor posture in rust 70s stretch pants and a matching fallen do gabbing to no one in particular in front of an open camera, displaying the classic, pretend self-importance of an ordinary citizen impressed by ‘being on TV’ during the committee’s short recess.

I had no idea who she was, but she drew my offhand assessment as a mildly neurotic staffer who was soaking up her brief moment in the glitter of a C-span live feed but who’d neglected to obey even minimal fashion and runway tips before facing away from her ‘audience’ with her hand in said stretch pocket, smearing her pants across a Curves™-forgotten derriere for all the world to fight or flee (or confess to masterminding 9/11).

You can imagine my surprise one panel later.

]]> By: Vic http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565527 Vic Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:02:53 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565527 <p>Yeah this is a big story and all but what is really important is who the father of Anna Nicoles child is, any news??? Has Ms.Spears shaved any more hair off her head?? I am really concerned!</p> Yeah this is a big story and all but what is really important is who the father of Anna Nicoles child is, any news??? Has Ms.Spears shaved any more hair off her head?? I am really concerned!

]]> By: Petrocelli http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565456 Petrocelli Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:40:54 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565456 <p>Hey HotFlash, I live in Toronto as well. I have been reading the great posts here since the Libby trial and have been telling people this is by far THE best site for reporting and comments.<br /> Sorry to disagree with you, but why are you wasting fine Canadian Whisky by adding Hot Chocolate to it ;-)</p> Hey HotFlash, I live in Toronto as well. I have been reading the great posts here since the Libby trial and have been telling people this is by far THE best site for reporting and comments.
Sorry to disagree with you, but why are you wasting fine Canadian Whisky by adding Hot Chocolate to it ;-)

]]> By: itwasntme http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565413 itwasntme Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:28:43 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565413 <p>I didn’t realize why my comment on a previous thread was removed, but now I understand that I was urging action that wasn’t strictly legal, so I want to apologise here for myself.</p> <p>Snark is my first reaction to most things, and it gets out before I can control my fingers. I will try to clean up my act.</p> <p>Hugs to all Fine Firedogs.</p> <p>CHS et al, please have a relaxing evening. You must’a busted your energy supply today.</p> I didn’t realize why my comment on a previous thread was removed, but now I understand that I was urging action that wasn’t strictly legal, so I want to apologise here for myself.

Snark is my first reaction to most things, and it gets out before I can control my fingers. I will try to clean up my act.

Hugs to all Fine Firedogs.

CHS et al, please have a relaxing evening. You must’a busted your energy supply today.

]]> By: maunga http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565384 maunga Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:17:27 +0000 http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/16/well-that-was-interesting/#comment-565384 <p>Upstairs two threads, people.</p> Upstairs two threads, people.

]]>