Free-lance columnist John Burtis has a vigorous Fitzgerald-basher with a brilliant title.
I may have permanent writer's block. Or title block, anyway.
MORE: Let's get some perspective on the Plame investigation from leak recipient Walter Pincus of the Wash Post:
Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. “I don’t think it was a crime,” he says. “I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.” The entire Plame investigation, he says, has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war.
WHOP whop whop whop whop!!!
Posted by: cathyf | May 16, 2006 at 12:18 PM
No, there's crime, then there's provable crime.
You know, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'?
Surprised you legal eagles don't know that.
Posted by: Semanticleo | May 16, 2006 at 12:19 PM
He's got another good one here (disclosure: I'm a sucker for a Buckaroo Banzai reference).
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 16, 2006 at 12:28 PM
"It is rumored that Mr. Fitzgerald’s next subpoena in this weighty matter of state is going out to one Mr. Larry Fine, for a number of suspicious notes written to a Mr. Vernon Dent."
Jason Leopold would have been better off to start his articles with "It is rumored...."
Posted by: lurker | May 16, 2006 at 12:29 PM
Just admit that all you have is a BELIEF there was a crime. Think back real hard now. When was the first time you BELEIVED there was a crime? What was it you read and from whom?
Take your time.
Posted by: Syl | May 16, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Title envy is never a pretty thing, though is this case, it's justified.
Posted by: Strick | May 16, 2006 at 12:39 PM
I blogged on that I loved it so--Is he a lurker? Weren't we just talking about Mo and Curley? If you're watching ,John..kudos.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 12:47 PM
It sure would be interesting to get the answers to the questions Cheney asked.
Does the CIA routinely send ex-ambassadors out on missions to find information that wars could hinge on? If so, are these missions usually done pro bono and without confidentiality agreements?
Since all matters in the CIA seem to be an open book now, these questions should be easy to answer.
Posted by: jwest | May 16, 2006 at 12:51 PM
' I blogged on that I loved it so--Is he a lurker?'
I think not. Had he been he would have written a better column.
Great title though, I agree.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 16, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Here's another whopper which I don't think anyone posted. http://dummiefunnies.blogspot.com/2006/05/fitzmas-freudenschade-spreads-far-and.html
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 01:08 PM
TM
You need to start a thread on the Judith Miller column from the WSJ today. She has a very well-researched look into Libya's WMD program and decision to give it up.
Posted by: JohnH | May 16, 2006 at 01:15 PM
clarice's link: Fitzmas Freudenschade Spreads Far And Wide
Posted by: cathyf | May 16, 2006 at 01:16 PM
I often wonder if at the end of all of this there is some sort of a "Jack-in-the-box" lurking. Maybe It's a Dick-Cheney-in-the-box.
We know that Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms Flame's name, but did Dick Cheney, who also has classification (and declassification) authority, authorize it ?
If Fitz tries to push meaning of Dick Cheney’s penciled notes, Dick could fire back.
Posted by: Neo | May 16, 2006 at 01:24 PM
Fitz pas: n. a prosaic incident that is recast as a sinister move in a nefarious if vague cabal. ex: Cheney committed a fitz pas when he asked "BTW, what's this horseshit Wilson's peddling about me sending him to Niger?"
Posted by: beautifulatrocities | May 16, 2006 at 01:28 PM
The URL for this entry is pretty funny.
Posted by: Wilson's a liar | May 16, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Heh. That guy has the same reaction to the notes in the margin I had. I've been imagining the conversation that morning in the VP's office for a while now.
Cheney: Scooter! Get in here and close the door!
Libby: Yes sir.
Cheney: What the f&*% is this?
Libby: (pauses to read) I don't know sir.
Cheney: Who the h%^& is this guy?
Libby: I've never heard of him sir.
Cheney: (glares)
Libby: We could ask Tenet sir.
Cheney: Tenet? George Tenet? The Director of the CIA? The one that sent this guy? Pro Bono?
Libby: If that's true, yes sir.
Cheney: (presses intercom) Mary? Get me Tenet on the line please.
Response: Yes sir.
Cheney: So let me get this straight. This guy....Wilson?....yeah. The CIA asks this guy to go to Niger to see if he can get anything on the uranium thing. He's not an employee of the agency and never has been, he spends a week sitting by the %&^$ing pool and now he's calling me a liar in the NYTimes. That about it?
Libby: ....it seems like it may be sir.
Cheney: Is it true his wife works at the agency? Is that correct
Libby: It seems as if I may be hearing that for the first time sir.
Cheney: Is this the way the CIA does things nowadays Scooter? The C %^&king IA of the USA?
Libby: I don't know sir.
Cheney: (sweetly) Well do you think you could find out what's going on here then?
Libby: On it sir.
Posted by: Dwilkers | May 16, 2006 at 01:56 PM
It's a classic article which really sums up the madness that is King Fitz.
Also in the WSJ is an article by Ms. Espeo regarding Jason Leopold's flame-out over the weekend. It pretty much destroys his credibility by saying he USED to work for the msm.
Posted by: maryrose | May 16, 2006 at 01:58 PM
Weren't we just talking about Mo and Curley?
I remember that too, although the Google spiders have not stopped by recently so they are no help.
However - some folks do refer to our oft-quoted buddy as Larry Moe Curley Johnson.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | May 16, 2006 at 01:59 PM
The three stooges: Libby, Cheney and Rove?
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | May 16, 2006 at 02:02 PM
Those were the two best satires I've read in ages. Perfection.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 02:03 PM
The Court of Appeals required Miller and Cooper testify, balancing the principles of rule of law and freedom of press, relying on the weight of national security interests in protecting covert agents (based on Fritz's representations). They indicated that this also applied to perjury as perjury as to such a national security leak was tantamount to a leak of such a nature.
Suppose Russert or other reporters refuse to testify. As it now appears this was not a national security leak, would the balance now be drawn in favor of upholding the privledge? Could the case now be dismissed as this denies Libby a means to defend himself
Posted by: fletcher hudson | May 16, 2006 at 02:05 PM
FH, that was the view of one J. Tatel, not the other two members of the panel IIRC. The others did not adopt a balancing act test.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 02:13 PM
Today is the Libby Press hearing isn't it?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 02:56 PM
OT. The Wall Street Journal has the first in a 2 part series about the Libyan nuclear program. There is an interesting insight about the disinterest of the CIA in the whole process. Is this a coming out party for Judith Miller or has she been writing elsewhere? http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008381
Posted by: TP | May 16, 2006 at 02:57 PM
Sorry, I guess somebody beat me to it.
Posted by: TP | May 16, 2006 at 03:00 PM
Gee, ts..I fogot!
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 03:03 PM
**foRgot***
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 03:03 PM
What happened to Larry and Shep? Are they buried in the garden?
Posted by: danking70 | May 16, 2006 at 03:03 PM
Not crazy about the title myself, but I loved this part:
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 16, 2006 at 03:37 PM
TS9, From the Note:
The US District Court holds a 1:30 pm ET hearing before Judge Walton on former Cheney aide Scooter Libby's request to subpoena NBC News, Time magazine, and the New York Times to turn over drafts and documents related to the Valerie Plame outing.
Posted by: lemondloulou54 | May 16, 2006 at 03:44 PM
Thanks Lou Lou
I knew the 16th and checked too...thanks for the time.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 03:46 PM
The cat's fine, thanks. Her stool sample shows no evidence of harmful parasites, which is one of the big differences between my cat's stools and this case. i do, occasionally, take a day (or, if i can, an evening) off. Bob Luskin
Posted by: Neo | May 16, 2006 at 04:31 PM
Leopold on Schultz in about 10 minutes:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/obviously_five_.html#comment-17344166
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 04:50 PM
Leopold on (I'll leave comments as he goes - give me typo leeway though)
Has been served indictment papers. Oop...Jason is having a loud ringing on his phone that has preventing him from talking so now they have had to hang up and get him back, but it is on Jason's phone
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:12 PM
You really have to wonder what happens if this case gets to trial.
Whjen Libby's lawyer asks one of these reporters what were their others sources for information about Plame and Wilson.
Do they plead the First Amendment????
Do they out their sources?
Does the judge rule the whole line of questioning out of order?
Does that stand on appeal??
Anyway, what time is Fitz's presser on the 72 count Rove indictment.
Posted by: Patton | May 16, 2006 at 05:21 PM
That's 72 virgins Patton. You are getting confused, I think. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2006 at 05:22 PM
back on
Jason says he says he thinks it still holds
got a phone call from his source on a phone call on sat, was given super detailed report on the marathon meeting at Luskins
today he was told the entire 4th floor was locked down at Luskins office, plea negations with secret service details
he felt it was an explosive story and his editors corroborated and honestly believed it would break in the NYT's WAPO some else tipped
needless to say, everyone going after him now, and he doesn't meant to sound defensive but yesterday there were 75 reporters at Roves speech and only 1 reporters asked Rove a ? and NO BODY is following up and blaming MSM for not following up
he felt he confirmed with more than 2 sources
other Knight Rider, MSNBC and ABC(?) have a tip but can't track it down (aren't these the same as Larry;s email to Seixon?)
editor knows his sources are
he says his sources haven't burned him in the past(WTF???)
Some blogs hate him, not jealous, he is a nice guy...people wasting energy on little old me (true - me included)
He knows he looks like he is wrong
he bashing Roves spokesman - because of Livingstone resigned
goal-post moving - never said he said when it will be announced
says what ED said
Luskin - he know is going to call all vets
Schultz wants to know if he went to vet alone
Leopold asks why would he be making it up
He has an email- Shultz doesn't want th hear about it
Basically doesn't say jack
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:25 PM
love how he does a little research on Rove's spokesman to insinuate Corrello(sp) is a liar without mentioning that Jsaon called him and used another reporters name and gave him a phony, off by one number phone number.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:29 PM
Top,
I don't understand the vet question...
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Weren't we just talking about Mo and Curley?
I remember that too, although the Google spiders have not stopped by recently so they are no help.
However - some folks do refer to our oft-quoted buddy as Larry Moe Curley Johnson.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | May 16, 2006 at 05:32 PM
Oh, sorry
Jason said he will be calling every vet in Washington to try a confirm Luskin saying he took his cat to the Vet...
it's that dumb.
And um...is a Vet even allowed to confirm that kind of thing, I don't think a doctor could.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:33 PM
Can anyone diagrahm a 15 HOUR conversation between Fitz and Rove?
Fitz: Your Guilty
Rove: Am Not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am Not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am Not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am Not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Mint?
Fitz: Thanks.
Rove: Am Not.
Fitz: Are too.
Rove: Am not.
Fitz: Are too.
Posted by: Patton | May 16, 2006 at 05:38 PM
ROFLMAO!!
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 05:39 PM
It would be rather hilarious (and sad) if Luskin had his Vet issue a statement of some sort confirming he brought his cat in --releasing the stool sample test results with the statement...wouldn't it?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:40 PM
"goal-post moving - never said he said when it will be announced says what ED said"
I never said anything. I pulled quotes from the guy's article.
Posted by: ed | May 16, 2006 at 05:40 PM
LOL. Patient confidentiality? He could call every vet in Washington DC and not find the one he takes his cat to. My daughter lives in the DFW metroplex but brings her dogs here to the vet. How truly stupid Leopold has become.
Posted by: Sue | May 16, 2006 at 05:41 PM
--I never said anything. I pulled quotes from the guy's article.--
Sorry Ed
Said the same thing as Ed's comment in which he pulled quotes from Jason article
really meant nothing other than that.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:42 PM
cathy :-)
I think only humans are covered under HIPAA. If cats are covered I will take that as a sign of the impending apocalypse!Posted by: cathyf | May 16, 2006 at 05:43 PM
Also Ed
I was typing fast (as i think I made clear with the typo comment) so I am sorry if I wasn't super clear.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:43 PM
Ts
doesn't that come under pet-doctor/patient confidentiality? I'm giving Leopold a big L for loser on this one.
OT:
Schrummy on Hardball got disconnected on his opinion of Immigration. Rove must have turned his mind-ray on him.
Posted by: maryrose | May 16, 2006 at 05:45 PM
I think we are spending too much time on Jason Leopold. Three weeks ago there was news that Fitzgerald would make a decision on Rove soon--within weeks. That is not news. The GJ meets tomorrow and Friday, but we don't know if it will hear any information on the Plame case.
If Fitzgerald is leaning towards indictment this week, there should be news starting tonight, probably in the NYT that he plans to wrap up the case to the GJ tomorrow and indict Friday.
Again, if Rove is indicted this week, it has nothing to do w/Leopold's report. He has been reporting Rove's indictment for weeks.
Based on the merits of the case, I would come down on no indict. Fitz is the, er, joker, so he throws me off. The way he would handle it is say he had information that caused him to delay his decision, he investigated it (for six months) and it didn't change his mind. The media will swoon, that Elliot Ness, he is so fair.
Posted by: Kate | May 16, 2006 at 05:52 PM
"
Oh, sorry
Jason said he will be calling every vet in Washington to try a confirm Luskin saying he took his cat to the Vet...
it's that dumb.
And um...is a Vet even allowed to confirm that kind of thing, I don't think a doctor could."
Washington state???
Boy, that's a HUGE state! :)
Where is Jason saying this things? link?
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 05:52 PM
Nothing happened today. Sigh...
Another 24 hours....
Anything out of that appeals court case before Walton?
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 05:53 PM
Is today's Libby media hearing open? Wonder if York will have some observations?
Posted by: Kate | May 16, 2006 at 05:54 PM
Lurker
you are kidding about Washington state right? and there is a link above to another link to the radio hosts site (and should be able to listen to it recorded)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 05:55 PM
Washington DC.
I dunno what just any old vet would do but my vet would laugh if someone called him like that.
Posted by: Dwilkers | May 16, 2006 at 05:59 PM
--I dunno what just any old vet would do but my vet would laugh if someone called him like that.--
Jonesing for Herbie pix!!!!!!!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Whatever happens one thing I am sure about is they didn't meet last Friday for any 15 hours for any reason.
Posted by: Dwilkers | May 16, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Tehehehe, Yup, you fell for it! :)
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 06:03 PM
Herbie made an appearance in the immigration thread this morning TSK9. ;-)
He snuck on the computer while I was taking the a shower this morning. He such a baaad boy.
Posted by: Dwilkers | May 16, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Jason Loophole should be given some leeway here,if it were not for this he would be still steeped an a life of petty crime and drug abuse.
Congratulations to him for straightening out and joining the second oldest profession.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 16, 2006 at 06:08 PM
What happens if the cat is covert?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 16, 2006 at 06:09 PM
Covert Cat actually.
Posted by: Classified Cat | May 16, 2006 at 06:11 PM
What--and I am just asking, you know--what if the cat ATE THE INDICTMENT?
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 06:11 PM
Madam,I am a lawyer's cat not an alley cat.
Posted by: Classified Cat | May 16, 2006 at 06:18 PM
ROFL! Excuses! Excuses! Is Luskin one of the teacher's favorites? Hope he didn't forget a well-polished, beautiful, shiny red apple!!
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 06:23 PM
Well speaking as the owner of the Supermodel Racoon Cat, if the cat ate the indictment it'll be back up soon enough. *cough* *cough* *hack* *cough* *gag*
cathy :-)
Posted by: cathyf | May 16, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Of course it could have ended up in the litter tray.
Posted by: Classified Cat | May 16, 2006 at 06:34 PM
That's the spirit!
Posted by: ghostcat | May 16, 2006 at 06:36 PM
ROFL!
Brit Hume just reported something about today's Libby hearing. The judge wasn't warm to allowing Libby's team bring Joe Wilson to the stand. The judge didn't see any relevancy. NBC lawyers for Andrea Mitchell claim that Andres misspoke on the common knowledge about Plame.
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 06:40 PM
Tony Snow's first WH briefing
One of the questions directed to Tony Snow was about Karl Rove. Good thing that Tony Snow refused to confirm or deny.
Poor Helen Thomas, she tried so hard to get Tony Snow to admit that Bush violated US law WRT NSA Terrorist surviellance program and this phone data base.
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 06:44 PM
Patton
You owe me not only a keyboard, but a cup, the cost of a divorce lawyer for waking Joe from his nap, and the cost of sinus medicine (don't ask).
Thank you, anyway. Made my day. :)
Posted by: Syl | May 16, 2006 at 07:09 PM
--He snuck on the computer while I was taking the a shower this morning. He such a baaad boy.--
Now, I knew I shoulda gone to that immigration thread...maybe I was channeling.
TopSecret CANINE luvs Herbie! Topsecret Canine luvs it when Herbie is BAAAAD!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 07:11 PM
As this case drags on, I have a growing suspicion that Fitzgerald came into it with his mind already made up. He seems determined to suppress any evidence that doesn't fit his theory. Earth to Patrick: If the glove don't Fitz, just call it quitz
Posted by: GnuCarSmell | May 16, 2006 at 07:22 PM
got a phone call from his source on a phone call on sat, was given super detailed report on the marathon meeting at Luskins
today he was told the entire 4th floor was locked down at Luskins office
Did Jason Leopold ever think that Patton Boggs just might have other clients ?
I don't know exactly what kind of clients other than Mr. Rove Patton Boggs handles, and for all we know this (above) could have happened, but it just might be that it involved a shopping mall deal, a Harry Potter-like book/merchandise deal, an intellectual property sale, a civil suit deposition or a corporate buyout due diligence.
Posted by: Neo | May 16, 2006 at 07:45 PM
NBC lawyers for Andrea Mitchell claim that Andres misspoke on the common knowledge about Plame.
Really. Take her word for it.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Well, everyone in this case misspoke or forgot, including Fitz, not fair to single out Libby or Rove. Pardons all around and everyone back to work!
Posted by: Kate | May 16, 2006 at 07:50 PM
"got a phone call from his source on a phone call on sat, was given super detailed report on the marathon meeting at Luskins
today he was told the entire 4th floor was locked down at Luskins office"
This was today?
OOOKKKAAAYYY, question:
Did someone call Corallo and Luskin to verify that the entire 4th floor of Luskin's office was locked down?
Jeralyn Merritt? Byron York?
Neo, I had wondered about the other clients, too. Boy, that's an expensive bill going to Rove...15 hours x 800.00 per hour?
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Perhaps they should rename him Fitz Delay
Posted by: PeterUK | May 16, 2006 at 07:50 PM
Pardon my inelegance in suggesting there is
the faint odor of election night partyers
who have already guzzled the punch before either the projections, or returns have come in.
And you folks think I jump to conclusions without any factual foundation.....
Fascinating.
Posted by: Semanticleo | May 16, 2006 at 07:52 PM
Or last Saturday's MTLA meeting where they jumped to conclusions based on Jason's less-than factual articles?
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 07:55 PM
</partypooper>
Posted by: boris | May 16, 2006 at 07:55 PM
Would you be talking about a Maine Coon Cat Cathy?
If so that is a seriously cool animal, I have a friend that has one.
Posted by: Dwilkers | May 16, 2006 at 07:55 PM
It's hard to read but I'm guessing the source told him today that the entire 4th Floor was locked down on Friday. This is the same source that called him on Saturday with the news of the super marathon 15 hour meeting. I think that's what he means.
Posted by: Kate | May 16, 2006 at 07:56 PM
Surprised Jason still believes in his source....
Another one of those things for Corallo and Luskin to deny....
How many lives does Luskin's cat have left after last Saturday?
Posted by: Lurker | May 16, 2006 at 07:59 PM
-I'm guessing the source told him today that the entire 4th Floor was locked down on Friday.--
Yes, though I can't remember if he said "my source" or "a source" called today -
on the link, the segment should be recorded - as I am sure I missed a few things
BTW...does anyone know if Rove has SS detail and to what degree? I mean it's not like Karl Rove has a fleet of agents traveling around with him to the degree described here like the president. 2? 3? tops...not like 3 SSagents are going to be that noticeable compared with a fleet of lawyers either.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 08:04 PM
It's hard to read but I'm guessing the source told him today that the entire 4th Floor was locked down on Friday.
With Secret Service no less.
Maybe Chelsea Clinton needs lawyers for something?
Oh, I know! This will get their hearts fluttering---maybe Cheney was there!!!
I don't think Rove gets a Secret Service detail.
Posted by: Syl | May 16, 2006 at 08:05 PM
Byron York has another post on Leopold and maybe the JOM lawyerscould help me out. Why would Fitzgerald come to Luskin's office instead of the other way around? Would Rove be there? Fitzgerald handed Rove the indictment? I didn't know indictments were handed down like that. I thought they were filed in court. The entire 4th Floor was locked down. Wouldn't every lawyer and paralegal in the place be calling the media. Wouldn't the other media Leopold cites have more than one source.
I just think Leopold and his source made this up and thought they could stall to a real indictment and take credit for breaking the story.
Posted by: Kate | May 16, 2006 at 08:08 PM
Syl
Great minds!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 08:09 PM
Jason Loophole should be given some leeway here,if it were not for this he would be still steeped an a life of petty crime and drug abuse.
Congratulations to him for straightening out and joining the second oldest profession.
/ROFL
I love British humor.
Posted by: Dwilkers | May 16, 2006 at 08:11 PM
It's probably R/S/S passing off to Luskin the supersecret plane for nuking Iran to divert press attention from his indictment. They're trying to time it right.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 08:13 PM
*PLAN, not plane**********
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 08:14 PM
--I just think Leopold and his source made this up and thought they could stall to a real indictment and take credit for breaking the story--
I am just curious why no one is asking Wilson the same questions as Leopold...since he has sources that said the same thing---- (and did commiserate with Truthout editor before it was retracted)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 08:15 PM
Maine Coons are pretty cool cats. One of my coworkers has one who is another one like The Dog. They got him as a stray -- he was filthy, and had fleas, but even as a stray, he was FAT. Not missing any meals!
Now I'm sitting here wondering why I haven't taken The Racoon to the pound long ago! Oh, well, he's very sweet and affectionate (another Uncat thing!) He will put his cheek against yours and purr...
cathy :-)
Nah, he's a tuxedo cat. We have 3 cats -- The Cat, The Dog, and The Racoon. We thought The Dog was bad -- jumping up on the counters and tables to grab food, and then we got The Racoon. Pour cereal in your milk, put the milk back in the fridge, turn around, and in the 3.5 seconds, The Racoon has already eaten 1/2 your cereal. I locked the case with the girl scout cookies in the bathroom this morning, and I came home to find the remains of peanut butter patties with all of the peanut butter licked off in the middle of the living room floor. He opens kitchen cabinets and drags food out. A couple of days ago he openend the fridge, and I panicked, but then decided that the fridge must not have been all the way closed and so he still can't get it open in general. He knocks over garbage cans. Day before yesterday he dragged out a bag of rice that I had pitched as slightly aged leftovers. This from the kitche trash with the heavy lid wedged behind the door with the broom propping the door. But the very worst thing is that after he eats aything other than the Purina Special Care Cat Food For Sensitive Systems, he pukes. (Hence the bulemia comment.)Posted by: cathyf | May 16, 2006 at 08:20 PM
OT;
Not that I don't like cats we have one}
Any more news about how and when McCarthy got hired back and any progress on NSA leak?
I think Clarice said some info coming the latter part of May.
I agree with Kate- no do overs or take backs for Andrea Mitchell. If she misspoke then Libby was misunderstood. There we are even!
Posted by: maryrose | May 16, 2006 at 08:25 PM
cathyf:
If I had a cat like that destroying my house we'd be at the pound in a New York minute. We only have the one cat which we got when I was in a vulnerable place having lost my dad 3 months earlier. My children sensed momentary weakness and struck;hence we have Kona who really doesn't mess with me since I end up feeding her and cleaning the litter box. But I draw the line at puke clean up.
Posted by: maryrose | May 16, 2006 at 08:32 PM
SCRATCH Culture of Conniption--The new Dem themes is--ta da--A Spiritual Covenant with America:
Now it's "spiritual covenant with America" (quick hide those no more Bush Theocracy signs) conference geared to help Democrats infuse God into their politics begins tomorrow at All Souls Unitarian Church in the District with the unveiling of a "spiritual covenant with America."
The "Spiritual Activism Conference" aims to equip liberals to operate in a political arena where religion has played a more prominent role since 2000, says Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder of the Jewish magazine Tikkun and a chief conference organizer.
"While we support the liberal agenda, we are going to a much deeper level with this spiritual critique," he said. "We want to bring in a nonutilitarian framework that sees other human beings as embodiments of the sacred."
After some 1,200 conferees receive copies of the covenant -- an alternative to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's successful 1994 "Contract With America" that led to a Republican takeover of the House later that year -- they are expected to discuss it Thursday in meetings with members of Congress. " http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060515-110136-1693r.htm
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2006 at 08:37 PM
Perhaps the source misspoke. The entire fourth floor was locked (not locked-down), because LUSKIN WASN'T THERE.
Posted by: MayBee | May 16, 2006 at 08:43 PM
"We want to bring in a nonutilitarian framework that sees other human beings as embodiments of the sacred."
How are they going to square that with Ted?
Posted by: PeterUK | May 16, 2006 at 08:47 PM
I'm sorry this is very OT, but I did not realize the conspiracy theories surrounding the pentagon plane , this is N U T S (warning DU link)
What exactly happened to the people supposedly on board (god rest their souls) the plane? Barbara Olsen perished on that plane...I hate to even say such, but she has not surfaced? Do these things cross their mind? at all? This is crazy.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 16, 2006 at 08:48 PM