... maybe they'll let Libby's time be traded for that served by Judy Miller?

James,
With "Al" running DOJ, I doubt we'll see anything further on the Libby verdict. Ideal situation would be exchange Libby's testimony against Cheney for reduced jail time. Would put the President in a vise over pardon and would make candidates who run in '08 very squeamish about cozying up to the President.
Interesting times.

Nice to note that the "apologists" are not jumping on this one to defend Cheney etc. Guess the blind hog finding an acorn applies to even the dimmest bulb in the socket.

"Guess the blind hog finding an acorn applies to even the dimmest bulb in the socket."

Nice mixing of metaphores, LIBCON ... aside from the fact that the superlative "dimmest" requires a minimum of THREE bulbs and you have but ONE socket!

The next time you decide to "grab the ball by the horns and run with it, take time to smell the tunnel at the end of the rainbow, 'cause that fish won't hunt!"

Make that "metaphors."

Jack,
Too funny! Funniest part, was that in your haste to type, you misspelled!
Did you read Jack Gale's book?
He sent me a copy and I loved it. I can remember the old WAYS days so well. What are you doing these days?

Yeah, I DEFINITELY made a mistake on the spelling of "metaphors." But here's the really funny thing about it: I owned up to the fact that I was mistaken by immediately posting a correction. Even funnier ... and this is just a guess, of course ... I doubt you would have known that it was a mistake had I not done so.

'Fess up now, DD. Yes or no?

... well Jack .. just to open an old wound .. I once put an immediate clarifier on one of my posts .. owning up to the fact I had not been clear .. effectively posting a correction .. but you still cut no slack ..

James, do you REALLY want to reopen that discussion? Now BEFORE you answer hastily, perhaps you should go back and re-read that thread.

Just start at the March 15, 11:33 am posting where I asked you three questions, to one of which you answered, "Well it depends," at 10:41 pm, having been away from the computer all day.

There was some back and forth on the 16th.

I "called you out" on your answer on the 17th at 4:06 am. After fussing around with post after post, on your fourth one at 4:52 am you said it pissed you off that I did so. And it wasn't until an 13 hours after that, 5:52 pm, that you actually recanted your "Well it depends," and went with, "Of course I would ...."

Let's review: From the time you uttered, "Well it depends," until you finally said, "Of course I would ...," over 43 HOURS of highly charged dialog transpired.

Now you have the temerity to state, "..I once put an immediate clarifier on one of my posts .. owning up to the fact I had not been clear .. effectively posting a correction .. but you still cut no slack ..."

IMMEDIATE? Hardly. NOT BEEN CLEAR? C'mon. And you equate that with a misspelling of "metaphor" which was corrected, without having been called on it at all, in a matter of seven minutes?

Well, I guess a mistake is a mistake, eh? Order of magnitude is not really the issue here. Tell ya what, James. Let's not delve back into this. You just hold my feet to the fire all day long for my error, and I'll do the same to you for yours. Deal?

Or, we can just let bygones be bygones. It's your call. I'm game either way.

Happy to revisit .. you're the one needing the new set of glasses:

==

JackArmstrong at March 15, 2007 11:33 AM

"... if you could go back in time to August 2001, impose the restrictions that now exist and thereby prevent the acts of September 11, 2001, would you do it?"

==

James D. Rockefeller at March 15, 2007 10:41 PM

"Well it depends .. I heard on[e] of the planes was hijacked with a plastic knife .. that would still be allowed."

I was clearly saying that "the restrictions that now exist" would not ... THEREBY ... with a 100% Assurance .. have stopped all the attacks.

It was a Bullshit question .. so I tried to open meaningful discussion: how other newly imposed government policies were in fact counter-productive .. items you have never challanged so clearly you must agree.

==

Silence from Jack.

==

James D. Rockefeller at March 16, 2007 9:32 PM

Jeeze Jack .. I was hoping for more discourse.

==

JackArmstrong at March 17, 2007 4:06 AM

"Comment: It DEPENDS ...? I have to say that my answer to that question would have been an unqualified, "YES." But I suppose you have your own reasons for possibly not taking actions to prevent the attacks."

==

It's was THEN clear you didn't understand - so 17 minutes later ..

James D. Rockefeller at March 17, 2007 4:23 AM -

"You asked if I could "impose the restrictions that now exist ... " I answered that question honestly: The restrictions that now exist WOULD NOT HAVE prevented all the 9-11 attack."

==

A few minutes later I restated to assure no confusion:

"If restrictions could be imposed to prevent the 9-11 attacks, I would probably be in favor of them .. however I do not see the restrictions that have been imposed as any guarantee that the 9-11 attacks would not have occurred."

==

Me thinks YOU need to do the re-reading.

Jack - when you first did the typo in this thread .. is was ironic and funny, but I made no comment because I create more typo's than anyone.

My ire re-stirred only after you went back to defend your correction - because you ragged on me for days. I'm perfectly cool with letting stupid boo-boo's go - even misunderstandings and especially differences of opinion, but you should do the same.

Allow me to net this out for you, James.

My question: "... if you could go back in time to August 2001, impose the restrictions that now exist and thereby prevent the acts of September 11, 2001, would you do it?"

Your answer: "Well it depends..," followed by a bunch of plastic knife, Richard Reid, bullet proof cockpit doors, Red - Amber - Green, illegal wiretaps, the restrictions would not have worked, gobbledygook; all the while not straightforwardly answering the question that had been asked. Just, "Well it depends."

Furthermore, if you thought it was a bullshit question, WHY did you attempt to respond at all?

At long last, days later and with what appeared to be considerable reluctance, you changed your answer. This only after fighting tooth and nail to obfuscate your obviously painful blunder.

The thread is still out there. Anyone who's still interested can read it and form their own opinions. But if I were in your position, James, I'd try to call as little attention to the matter as possible. It's fourth down and VERY long yardage for Team JDR. Just punt and you'll have a much better chance of gaining a decent field position.

Okay, James: Here's your cue to jump in and salve your compulsion to have the last word once again. Aaaaand ACTION: