No man who is under 80 and wears a bowtie could ever be considered "on fire." Unless, you know, you actually set him on fire.

George Will's pieces on the debacle that cannot be named were definitely en fuego.

No man who is under 80 and wears a bowtie could ever be considered "on fire." Unless, you know, you actually set him on fire.

ouch.

I only wear them occasionally. When I don't feel like spontaneously bursting into flames.

I nurse a secret fantasy where I jam Charles Osgood's bowtie up his ass and set the both of them on fire, while he delivers some banal piece of shit observation in rhymed couplets.

My secret fantasies tend more toward the lesbian cheerleader with me as the pom pom end of the spectrum. We're Charles Osgood ever to appear in any of my fantasies I would hope I would burst into flames.

Every time I look at Tucker Carlson and that stupid goddamned bowtie, I want to put my fist through his prissy momma's-boy face. It's an atavistic reaction, totally unconnected to his beliefs and opinions. But he looks like such a dork. (And I bet if you hit him hard enough, he'd cry.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Tucker Carlson a Tai-Kwon-Do black belt and weapons expert? Or am I thinking of somebody else?

All you lawlerly types, what's the significance of Fitzgerald asking for a new grand jury?

Oh wait, maybe that was Cameron Diaz in Charlie's Angels.

The post on thermobaric weapons reminded me of this: "If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an hour. But if you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of lhis life."

Fitzgerald's chasing his own tail. He started with a false premise, built a mistaken theory, failed to ask obvious questions, and kept looking for confirmation of his original false premise. Maybe now he's trying to retrace his steps but I doubt it.

It's what Lawrence Walsh did in Iran-Contra. He bought the official Liberal Media version, hook through sinker. He never had the first clue what it was all about.

I don't know enough about crim law to speculate why he could/would/should get another grand jury, but this guy's last monkey circus of a grand jury not only proved that there was no underlying crime, but that Fitzmasclause's list of naughty and nice couldn't even figure out the chronology of events. Thank you, Mr. Woodward.

Isn't there a statute of limitations or something to just shut it down with?

I see his proceedings as a quagmire. tee hee.

Knemon, I'm not a lawyerly type (nor do I play one on television), but I believe the term of the previous grand jury had expired. To continue the investigation, he needed a new one.

Unlike Ronnie Earle, who shops around for grand juries in Austin until he finds one who'll give him his indictments.

"If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an hour. But if you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of lhis life."

Classic.... you should use that as a sig line!!