Arthur takes us through another possible nightmare.
Michelle appeared on the Brad and Britt show the other day. Brad Krantz of WZTK-FM asked her about her husband. Eric Muller says: "Brad also asked her whether there's anything to all of the chatter out there on the internet that her husband writes some of the material that's published under her name."
Brad: What is that all about?
In her response she says:
Malkin: ...I'm glad that you asked about it...
Listen closely-does Michelle seemed perturbed at the question? She blogs about it this way:
"During one of countless book-related radio interviews this week, a liberal radio host insultingly asked me whether I write my own column."
She makes up nonsense in her post about the exchange just to start a controversy against the "evil liberals," and she wonders why she gets panned by so many. I think playing the racism card is ridiculous also. Is that Legal has much more on this. Ed Cone and Tbogg as well.
Scanlon pleads guilty. More to follow?
Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay and a lawyer who worked with high-powered Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge Monday...read on
Al Franken has a great chapter on Abramoff and Scanlon, ripping off the Indian casinos in his new book, The Truth. You have to read the email exchanges between the two.
Rumsfeld: I wasn't asked
Rumsfeld: "I didn't advocate invasion, I wasn't asked."
If you have read Woodward's "Plan of Attack," then you would know how deeply involved Rumsfeld was in the planning of the Iraq war. He systematically cut troops to the insufficient levels they were at the time of the invasion. Colin Powell blasts the size of the army and admits mistakes were made. Not so with Donald. Rumsfeld now tells us that it was almost impossible to impose order on Iraq and his response to the question was, "We'll never know."
ACLU sues over the booting of a few people from a Bush event because they dared to flash a bumper sticker....
CIA Veterans Condemn Torture
Jason Vest has a great piece: "...Although outrage has focused on the existence and symbolism of the black sites, comparatively little attention has been paid to the concerns -- if not outright objections -- of many distinguished CIA veterans about these sites and the use of torture in general. It's not just that such behavior is largely impractical, they say; it's that even by the morally ambiguous standards of espionage and covert action, the abuse is simply wrong...read on"
Dick Cheney Speech Today
I'm a little under the weather so I'll leave the analysis up to you as you watch the Vice President and his speech on Iraq. Cheney did say a few things that were a little unnerving. He gave the U.S. an open invitation to attack anyone that we might feel is a threat. (Paraphrasing: "It's up to them to prove us wrong," or something close to that.") Can you pick them out?
I noticed as did Faiz, that Dick Cheney started off his speech with a lie. Anyone surprised? He was upset because after he said on 11/16: "...And the suggestion thats been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city," the papers ran a headline that said Cheney Says War Critics Dishonest, Reprehensible. Seems accurate to me. Not according to Cheney. Think Progress has the transcript.
Judd then finds this whopper. "Those who advocate a sudden withdraw from Iraq should answer a couple simple questions. Would the United States and other free nations be better off or worse off with Zarqawi, Bin Laden and Zawahiri in control Iraq?" If we never attacked Iraq-this would never have been a point of discussion even if it's a falsehood.
I'm surprised he mentioned Osama at all, but Judd breaks it down...
(Update): The Nation: Cheney Picks a Fight With a Marine...
Stewart catches Cheney re-writing history himself.