Talk About "Dissembling"

Margaret Carlson's column about the US attorneys matter is, sadly, another example of the rambling and illogical work that too many of us have come to expect from her.

First, apropos of nothing, she throws in an unsubstantiated claim that the Administration "dissembled" on Iraq. Examples, please? What, exactly, did President Bush believe or say that President Clinton -- a hero of Carlson's -- didn't likewise believe or say?

But her bias is most egregious when it comes to discussing the US attorneys scandal. She writes:

The other aide is Monica Goodling, the White House liaison at Justice, who has refused to testify. Instead, she will plead the Fifth Amendment, providing us with the sorry spectacle of a top Justice Department official invoking a right we associate with those out to thwart justice. . . .

There's only one reasonable interpretation. Unlike Sampson, Goodling fears that the law making it a crime ``to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding'' was broken.

As Ms. Carlson knows -- or should know -- there's actually another reasonable interpretation: That Ms. Goodling doesn't intend to testify in a kangaroo court where the name of the game is for Democrats seize on any discrepancies in statements to perpetuate the supposed "scandal" and drive another politicized prosecution, a la Scooter Libby.

What's more, isn't it a little shocking for a liberal like Carlson to critique the invocation of the Fifth Amendment? What's the problem -- are invocations of constitutional protections legitimate only when they're employed by terrorist enemy combatants?