From TPM, evidence that Michael Steele really has no right talking on behalf of the Republican National Committee or, in fact, any legitimate political organization that has any sense at all.

"The McChrystal incident, to me, was very comical. And I think it's a reflection of the frustration that a lot of our military leaders have with this Administration and their prosecution of the war in Afghanistan," said Steele. "Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

Really?? Where was this guy in October 2001? Or for that matter, was he awake at any point in time between2001 and the end of 200? Really love this line also:

"Well, if [Obama is] such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that."

It's "never get involved in a land war in ASIA," asshole, a reference to Southeast Asia, not Central Asia. And is he seriously suggesting that the Republican position is to have our troops leave Afghanistan? as Obama's proposing to do starting in 2011? Michael Steele's spokesman later explained that Steele has also missed the numerous times where Obama has explained his strategy for Afghanistan. But hey, keep this good man at his post in the RNC. By the Republican politicians' silence, that must mean they endorse his idiotic comments. And that goes to show, once again, that the Republicans have absolutely no credibility discussing national security issues.

Men may not be necessary to Maureen Dowd, but a professional ethicist appears to be.

TPM:

Maureen Dowd in today's NY Times:

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

TPM's Josh Marshall on Thurs:

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

Almost verbatim. Look, we bloggers take shortcuts and copy and paste others all the time. I do it because there are a whole host of people out there who write better than I. But we GIVE CREDIT when we do it, as I did above when acknowledging that this post came from TPM. For a Pulitzer Prize winner to lift work done by bloggers and pass it off as her own on the pages of the NY Times is just not cool.

UPDATE: MoDo admits to HuffPo that she lifted the words and will give Josh Marshall proper credit...but I'm puzzled by her alibi:

josh is right. I didn't read his blog last week, and didn't have any idea he had made that point until you informed me just now.

i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column.

but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me.

we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow.

Now am I mistaken, or did MoDo just excuse her plagiarism by saying that she actually was trying to plagiarize her friend?