Frontline Drops the Big One: Will "Knuckleheads" Notice?
By Brian Lambert
[UPDATED, RE-GROOMED]
By its count, Frontline has produced more than forty documentaries on or around the subject of the War in Iraq. (Yes, it has been going on that long.) With Bush's War, a four-hour, two-part opus premiering Monday and Tuesday on PBS (TPT, channel 2 locally), it collects essentially everything knowable about the chain of events leading up to the war and lays it out for all to be reminded, refreshed, informed, . . . or ignore. It's terrific.
Here's PBS's list of the forty-plus.
Producer Michael Kirk (The Lost Year in Iraq, The Dark Side) gives us interviews with the by-now familiar cast of characters, from Colin Powell's right-hand man, Richard Armitage (the self-confessed original leaker in the Valerie Plame story); first-pass, short-lived occupation leader retired Gen. Jay Garner; multi-administration intelligence adviser Richard Clarke; CIA veterans Tyler Drumheller, Michael Scheuer, and Paul Pillar; and journalists, such as Bob Woodward, former Wall Street Journal senior national affairs editor Ron Suskind (his book The One Percent Solution remains a personal favorite), and on and on.
Among the missing, besides, of course, President Bush and the war's true architects—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz—is The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, whose reporting from the get-go has proved remarkably accurate in every regard, beginning with Cheney's manipulation of "intelligence" in order to "fix it around the policy" as the infamous Downing Street Memo said. Hersh will deserve a prominent place in the tale of the Iraq catastrophe. But not here.
Here is a link to Hersh's classic on intentionally-mangled intelligence, "The Stovepipe", from October 2003.
As I watched this film, in raw-cut form, pretty well draining a bottle of scotch to restrain my nerves (I mean, why throw crap at your own TV?), I found myself rehashing the handful of professional, Shakespearean-worthy tragedies. The destroyed reputations of Colin Powell, George Tenet, and Tony Blair, for example. Each of them were played for chumps, most likely by failing, as most of Congress did, to appreciate that although Bush might be telling them one thing and offering reassurances, at the end of the day, it was Cheney who had Bush's ear, it was Cheney who knew what Bush didn't (and didn't care if he didn't), and that it was Cheney's policy and strategic preferences that would carry the day each and every time.
(It is also painful, although much less surprising, to see, repeatedly, how far over her head Condoleezza Rice was/is in playing insider hardball with the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld.)
As I was watching it (in parcels over a few days so as not to risk cirrhosis), Barack Obama gave his "More Perfect Union" speech in Philadelphia, and Howard Fineman of Newsweek popped up on Countdown to offer a view. As tireless a "horserace" reporter as there is, Fineman, who was in the room in Philly, was clearly sobered by what he had heard. He told of leaving the auditorium and asking a local Philadelphia politician what he thought. Whomever it was (Fineman didn't say), agreed it was something special and valuable. But when Fineman asked how he thought it'd go down among the public at large, the politician replied that he couldn't say for sure because "there are a lot of knuckleheads in this town."
The "knuckleheads"—such as the unemployed guy on 60 Minutes a couple weeks back who told Steve Kroft he "heard" that Obama is a Muslim, but somehow never quite gets around to finding out for himself if its true or not —will, of course, never watch Bush's War. Nor will the less pitiable "knuckleheads" who choose not to understand for purely partisan reasons. as a result, both will remain highly suggestible and impressionable when the inevitable campaign scare tactics resume to selling them -- again -- on the idea we went to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and must stay there to finish the job . . . and that Iran is in cahoots with Al Qaeda as we speak. Moreover, each will very likely respond favorably, again, to the pitch that it is "elitists" who don't see things as they do, are manipulating "facts" and mocking them, and that they, the "knuckleheads," are the true salt of the American earth, apparently because they don't really know as much as they should.
Point being that I couldn't help jumping from the remarkably well-documented "case" presented in "Bush's War" with it's coalescing of the forty previous Frontline docs, along with obvious bows to Charles Ferguson's excellent theatrical release, No End in Sight; Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City; and Thomas Ricks's Fiasco (the last two are among those interviewed in Bush's War) to "knucklehead" reality. I couldn't help but jump from all that has been documented by first-hand participants and observers and be astonished at how many Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. How many are still "uncertain" about the now demonstrable lie that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were working together. Likewise, it is flabbergasting how many "knuckleheads" are still unaware that the Niger yellow cake story (if they've heard of it at all) was a fraud, and that Cheney and Rumsfeld had set up their own intelligence system and invented their own "facts" at the Pentagon to blunt, divert, and override anything the CIA might come up with that might challenge their plan for attack.
This "knucklehead" factor was on a lot of people's minds after Obama's speech. (As in: "Well you and I get it, but what about, you know, them.") My point here is that the "Knucklehead Factor" is an issue both for everyone hopeful of reversing course of the last seven years and American media, much of which is in the business of pandering to "knuckleheads" in order to make a buck.
Where would we be, I wonder, if the majority of the American media (daily newspapers and major television news) had been more aggressively skeptical in the run-up to the Iraq War rather than wringing hands and fretting over blowback from a public freaked into Chicken Little "patriotism"? Most editors and news directors knew better I believe, but, fearing the wrath of the knuckleheads, pulled their punches. Or even today, what if local newspapers squeezed back coverage of the latest teen fashion craze, advice columns and how to bait your hook featurettes for wider, persistent coverage of . . . take your pick of any of two dozen relevant national scandals?
Similarly, how much better off would we be now if the major commercial networks produced even two or three prime time, hour-long documentaries such as Frontline has, instead of wallowing around in the latest reality dating craze? (Sorry to be such a downer, but really, what do we need more? Clarity on where billions of dollars have gone in Iraq, the lunacy of Shia Iran "training'" Sunni Al Qaeda and why bin Laden is still spitting out propaganda tapes? Or two hours of Diane Sawyer at the Bunny Ranch whorehouse?)
And even now, in the midst of an election cycle, what if the cable news outlets devoted an hour here and there to reminding their viewers how all this happened? How the trillion or so bucks sucked out of the credit markets to pay for Iraq impacts the economy? Instead of, you know, the millionth variation on "horse-race" analysis? "Ooooh, did you hear? Hillary gave Obama the stink eye!" ... followed by three hours of specious punditry.
You don't have to listen to FoxNews flog and re-flog Obama's line about his grandmother being a "typical white person" to remind yourself how one variety of knuckleheads are fed and maintained in their ignorance. (Check out Chris Wallace of FoxNews trying to talk a flicker of sense with his colleagues on that one.) That crowd is practically hopeless. They have chosen ignorance. It's the "salt of the earth" crowd -- the folks who don't know who to believe but may be nearing the point where they realize they've been played for chumps by the "tax cuts for working America" and "terrorist fighting" conservative elite -- for whom there is some glimmer of hope.
The same dilemma Thomas Frank described for liberals in his book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" could apply to mainstream American media. Namely, you may think you have to pander and play the "something for everyone" game, but it is just as likely all you'll do is dilute your credibility, which is the bedrock of your business.
Meanwhile ... being an old Catholic, I take the attitude we get the government and culture we deserve. But another part of my Catholic DNA—the part that thought The Inquisition was a great idea—says its time to apply "Knucklehead Testing" at polling places.
If you can't answer correctly the question, "True or false: Did representatives of Saddam Hussein's government meet with Mohamed Atta in Prague?" you don't get to vote. Instead you're turned away with your six-pack of Keystone Light and DVD set of American Gladiator.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
The "knucklehead" mentality is the ultimate manifestation of no child left behind. Who needs an informed public thinking, voting and getting in the way of the Dick Cheneys of the world? I can't wait to see how the right will appease this crowd when gas fumes are all that's left of the halcyon days of gas-guzzling SUVs.
LAMBERT: I think there is fertile ground for the politician who persuasively, informally and in a vernacular these folks understand explains to them how badly they've been played for chumps.
Posted by: T Lee T on March 22, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Pretty funny coming from a guy who can't answer direct questions about the statements of "Reverend" Wright and the association of his spiritual accolyte Barry Hussein Obama.
LAMBERT: Just because you're persistent, I'll give you Best Three out Five on my poll quiz. But even then ...
Posted by: bertram jr on March 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM
You hit the nail on the head.
The media is so afraid they will be "unpopular" with the knuckleheads and unable to sell as many Fords that they jumped on this huge bandwagon of false patriotism that surged through our country post 9-11.
Some knew better, but they were shouted down by people who falsely believed they should support the president no matter what. What is amazingly clear is that Bush isn't even the primary architect in this whole mess, his buddies Cheney and Rumsfeld have called the shots from the beginning.
We live in a society today where Larry the Cable Guy is a multi-millioniare. That should tell you something.
LAMBERT: There's a wag the dog thing going on here, with the major "news" media playing dumb and low so as not to annoy the "knuckleheads", and in the process becoming more "knuckly" themselves.
Posted by: Tim on March 24, 2008 at 10:01 AM
As I recall, it wasn't JUST the knuckleheads who fell for the Bush scare tactics. Plenty of people with enough wattage to know better were all too happy to admonish anyone expressing skepticism over Bush/Cheney, Inc.'s casus belli for Iraq they were being less than patriotic.
I'd chalk that up to garden-variety cowardice and good ol' CYA instinct, not mere stupidity.
LAMBERT: Fear breeds "knuckleheadedness".
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on March 24, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Iraq is simply one front, one theatre, if you will, not a war unto itself. That is where you and the other Code Pinkers demonstrate your true inability to "get it".
Think Africa in WW2.
That was not a "war", it was part of a war.
The war in this case is against Islamo-Fascist terror, remember?
The war that includes the USS Cole, the '94 WTC bombing, etc. And, most horrifically, 9/11.
Get it?
Please try to keep up.
LAMBERT: Other than that silly, peripheral business of Al Qaeda not being in Iraq and us "dropping the ball" in Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight a country that had not attacked us you might be on to something. But as usual you're not.
(P.S. The Nazis were in North Africa.)
Posted by: bertram jr on March 24, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Huh, I must have been watching "The Irish in America".
Oh, well.
Posted by: bertram jr on March 24, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Of course, I'm just a "typical white guy".
LAMBERT: God, I hope not.
Posted by: bertram jr on March 24, 2008 at 11:03 AM
So, to use your logic, if the Nazi's were indeed in Africa, pray tell me WHO exactly is fighting against our forces in Iraq?
LAMBERT: ... getting woozy.
Posted by: bertram jr on March 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I might also point out that the Nazi's didn't attack us either.
LAMBERT: (Question to self. Am I really going to debate the difference between Iraq and WWII ... with bertram? Or am I going to try to get some work done?)
Posted by: bertram jr on March 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM
As a longtime journalist, even one with a serious Scotch problem, you know that American history is rife with examples of journalists and politicians alike looking the other way when fear grips this country. See the Red Scare post-WWI, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the McCarthy era. Fear motivates the collective imagination and will of this nation unlike anything else. It's fair to say we all suspended our critical thinking after we watched, and then watched again and again, the twin towers collapse. There's really nothing in American history quite like it, although Pearl Harbor may come close.
If the intelligensia were willing to take a pass and not subject Bush, Cheney and Rummy to the sort of scrutiny that was demanded, why get so upset with the knuckleheads? While it would be nice if everyone who voted had a reasonable grasp of the issues, the reality is that most people spend far more of their time worrying about their jobs, the price of gas, education for their kids and the prospect of getting laid sometime soon.
LAMBERT: It's the smart kids in the press -- who should know better, shouldn't be worrying so much about getting laid -- that bother me most. But why is the average American knucklehead so much more likely to believe in angels and demons and doubt evolution and their counterparts in Britain, Japan, France, Iceland, Sweden etc? Why so much "knucklier" here?
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on March 24, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I'll lend you my copy of Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. He asked the same questions in the late Fifties.
LAMBERT: There is of course also the difference in curriculum in American schools compared to western Europe. History, to use just one example, is taught with much less of that nuance-free John Wayne-style American primacy.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on March 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM
WWII, that was the War against Blitzkrieg, right? A multi-theatre war of western allies marshalled against a tactic.
Or, wait, was that a war against three actual nations with standing armies and navies and air forces? Are the two comparable in any meaningful way? Oh, that's right, they're not. SO why do you insist on it?
As I recall, Ken Burns did a yawn of a multi-part series on that war most recently for PBS. Lambert loved IT, too. But he somehow manages to make the distinction. What's your problem?
LAMBERT: The problem is obvious.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on March 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I think if one is looking for a war to compare, the Crusades would be a much more apt example.
I'm still waiting for the in-depth stories from these supposed smart-kids on how George Bush's deep affinity to Christianity (not to mention his entire political career) has colored his view of this war on Islam...I mean Islamo-Fascist terror. Cheney may have espoused the philosophical and political arguments on why we had to go, but I really believe it was George's Christian faith and the battle between Christianity and Islam that provided the final justification regarding his Iraq decisions.
The scary thing is that I've often felt that deep down, our President carries a religous fervor and desire to spread freedom/Christianity in a way that is espoused by Michelle Bachmann. For the heck of it, sometime change the word "Freedom" for "Christanity" and "Terror" for "Islam" in his speeches. You'll find a rather disturbing pattern that harkens back to the days of The Crusades.
Perhaps it is too tough a story to write and the fallout would be too high with the knuckleheads. But I'll always believe that religion is playing a far higher role in this war than any politics, at least when it comes to the Commander in Chief.
LAMBERT: Jesse Ventura's new book -- he's a "two time New York Times best-selling author" you know -- landed on my desk about the time I read your comment. What was the big guy's line about religion and crutches for what kind of minds?
Posted by: Danny B. on March 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Americans may be proud that our elected leaders are taking the neccesary steps to counter the threat of Islamo-fascist terrorists.
They have no "standing army", instead they use women and children as shields (among other heinous atrocities too gruesome for your delicate sensibilities to fathom) and they want to kill you, me and anyone else they may feel to be an "infidel".
Good luck with your peace garden.
LAMBERT: "Gruesome" ... now that's a word that comes to mind when I see one of your comments.
Posted by: bertram jr on March 24, 2008 at 2:39 PM
As long as this debacle is called a "war" we're really getting nowhere. Because what's going on is, and has been for at least 3 of the 5 years, is a true OCCUPATION. WE are not at technically at war! WE are not fighting or even trying to find the person and people responsible for 9/11. The "War on Terror" is like the "War on Drugs" - whereby the tactics to combat terror is based more on enforcement, vigilance and police work. That's what has kept us "safe" since 9/11, not "fighting them there so they can't get us here" b.s. Basically what Kerry got villified for in '04 and what Bushco basically said a few months later - and got another pass by the press.
But the knuckleheads don't WANT to get it. And they won't anytime soon, because the us against them mindset - whether being against "libruls" or Al Qaida is comforting.
Clearly, the tide has been turned for a long time now on the "war," indeed the administration. There's record amounts of corruption, deception and outright lies. Its a slippery slope when it comes to these things - do want the next Presidents of any political persuasion to use "executive privilege" signing statements as much as these guys have? Deep down, I like to believe the likes of Hannity, McCain, that jagoff Rick Santorum and so many others stare at the ceiling admitting that this crew REALLY f**ked things up in a historic fashion.
There's still a lack of real media awareness on what a remarkable failure this administration has been, how cronyism and incompetency has ruled the day here. And you still see a continued fear by the media to really dig in - witness the feeble attempts at "balance" over the surge. There's a complete misconception going on that the surge is working. By the reasoning behind the surge, its not.
Stuff like this Frontline special does a remarkable service. I just thing its a case of the proverbial tree falling in a forest.
LAMBERT: Well there's the forests and then there's those big areas of desert.
Posted by: essar1 on March 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Think you can get Bertram to tell us the correct answer on whether Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or not? Probably not.
LAMBERT: This is like that "Saturday Night Live" ... "Celebrity Jeopardy", with Darrell Hammond as Sean Connery.
Will Ferrell as Alex Trebek: "Ok mr. bertram. The category is "9/11 Myths". The answer for $1000 is, "Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing. Nothing at all." What is your guess here? Go ahead. The correct answer is, 'That's right', or 'Yes'. We'll even accept 'Yup' or 'OK'. Just say it.
"Did Saddam or didn't Saddam have anything to do with 9/11?"
Posted by: Mark Jeffries on March 24, 2008 at 4:17 PM
"It's the smart kids in the press -- who should know better, shouldn't be worrying so much about getting laid -- that bother me most."
I would like to hear how you expect our media to actually take the time to dig into these stories when a strong majority of our best "reporters" spend their entire afternoons and evenings figuring out how to tell us "what it means" on (insert cable news show here). When are they going to have time to actually do any investigative reporting when Countdown/O'Reilly/Special Report/Hardball wants them to come on and "analyze" the story?
Seriously, tell me how David Gregory has the time? Is he even the White House Correspondent for NBC anymore or the White House Columnist? Fox News would have me believe that Charles Krauthammer is reporting "news", but anybody with a half a mind knows he's just Katherine Kersten with a worse haircut which I still can't fathom being possible. When is the last time Dana Milbank filed an investigative report?
The issue is that our best "reporters" are blurring the line between being a reporter and a columnist. It's no longer enough for them to report the news, they also have to inject their opinions on it and in turn, their biases. It's also an issue that a majority of Americans are now getting their "news" from the TV and those stations aren't reporting "news." I'm sorry, but Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity are nothing more than cheap op-eds.
When you mix in the blurred lines of reporting versus op eds with the cutting of old-school newsroom budgets, you end up with short stories lacking depth and chalk full of opinion. I don't necessarily blame the boots on the ground, they're simply playing the game in the model the business has set-up over the past 12 years. But what you're ending up with is a less informed public as they're being fed (insert TV Columnist personality) as "news" instead of "opinion".
Blame the business model. Blame the egos of the personalities involved. But you're yearning for a brand of journalism that Cable TV "News" has destroyed, bit by bit, ever since Monica got that blue dress dirty.
LAMBERT: I don't know if cable news is the principle reason for the degradation of bona fide reporting. In an ideal world it'd be a good idea to have a couple hours a night where reporters could come in and break down their stories. But the business model is the same pack mentality that journalism has always struggled with and is more problematic now because of greatly reduced resources. Commercialized news follows the pack because someone(s) with an eye on what "the public"/"the demo" wants says they all want pretty much the same thing in the same way. I'm giving "Countdown" several extra points for tapping people outside of its own cult-like corporate orbit for "reporting" work, (unlike FoxNews), from the Washington Post, Newsweek, etc., and I have caught Olbermann apologizing for a screw up. But it too can be a monotonous shtick. Although I did like Richard Lewis on a few weeks ago.
Posted by: Danny B. on March 24, 2008 at 5:26 PM
The "knuckleheads"—such as the unemployed guy on 60 Minutes a couple weeks back who told Steve Kroft he "heard" that Obama is a Muslim, but somehow never quite gets around to finding out for himself if its true or not...
How about the World Trade Center 7 Crowd? The people that think the Israelis knocked down the towers? Once again, two way street.
LAMBERT: There's no argument from me on street direction. The "Building 7" crowd? Knuckleheads. Good God people there was a 21-story gash down the front of the building, the firemen were warning each other all day long. An the Israelis? Oh, come on. There's a very weird piece of turf where the "don't know much" crowd overlaps with the "don't trust anyone or anything" crowd. Both are knuckleheads. Neither should vote.
Posted by: 108 on March 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Will the knuckleheads get it? Dude, they're in it.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on March 24, 2008 at 10:59 PM
A possible simple solution for deciding who gets to vote: You have to pass the US Naturalized Citizenship test with 100%.
My guess? Most Americans would flunk, including the majority of the knuckleheads.
LAMBERT: What? Like know the First Amendment? Now you've gone too far.
Posted by: Tuned In on Washington on March 25, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Just remember, you'd have to know what the First Amendment *actually says* -- not simply that it exists.
And, Leinfelder, the knuckleheads aren't just "in it". They ARE "it".
LAMBERT: "Actually says"? But with all that clutter where will they find space to follow "American Idol"?
Posted by: Tuned In on Washington on March 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM
American Idol??
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
Need I say more?
LAMBERT: "Bless me Simon, for I have sinned ... "
Posted by: Tuned In on Washington on March 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Bertram Jr., who said this?
"Advocates of war claim that invading Iraq will trigger a process like the Velvet Revolutions in Eastern Europe, and bring a lot of Arab Lech Walesas and Vaclav Havels to power.
"This is a dream world. The populations in most of these countries are more anti-American than their governments. Radical change is as likely to open the door to Islamic extremists as to bring liberals to power. We are playing with fire in doing this. Our invasion will resurrect images of colonialism, and fuel even greater anger at the United States."
Conservative Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, February, 2003, as quoted by the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail.
LAMBERT: That man clearly was not part of the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith intelligence apparatus.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on March 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Knucklehead polling test? Keith Ellison probably would call that a poll tax. Do you believe in same day registering and not have to present an ID to vote?
LAMBERT: I'm arguing that a literacy poll test is far more relevant to a well-functioning society than whether you've got $20 in your pocket. Color-blind, too.
Posted by: Tom O on March 26, 2008 at 9:54 AM
What does race have to do with having a valid ID? How are you able to function in society without a valid ID?
I am glad to know that literacy and education have now crossed the racial threshold even if the ability to pay for a state ID has not.
Maybe I shouldnt assume, but I am guessing you felt there were voting irregularites in both 2000 and 2004. You dont feel that these issues would be present with no control over voter ID's?
LAMBERT: This is a semi-facetious hypothetical here. But -- for the sake of an argument -- a "political/current events literacy test" as a criteria for voting might make good sense. Why reward stupidity and laziness with a vote? Oh, I forgot, that's a Constitutional right.
Posted by: Tom O on March 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I know your blogging afficionados are past this and thinking about local news ratings (Thanks, Leinie, zzzzzzz) but I just wanted to mention that I watched most of Frontline over the past two nights. Owing to my age and narcolepsy, I'm forced to DVR shows and watch them between naps.
After five years it's amazing how much I've tried to forget. What a venal crowd. Rumsfeld and Powell were like the devil and angel sitting on W's shoulders, one whispering 'just slide your hand up her skirt', the other reminding him that he should wait until marriage. What a shock that he opted for the gusto.
Your piece neglected to mention Paul 'Jerry" Bremer. In retrospect it is easier to see him as the "Brownie" of this foreign disaster: no background for the job and generally incompetent in his execution of his duties. One can make a strong case that Orders #1 (De-Baathification) and #2 (dismantling Saddam's army) have resulted in much of the, dare I say it, quagmire, regardless of the feigned intelligence and the general lack of a post-takeover plan.
LAMBERT: Between naps read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City". way more Bremer/Brownie than anyone can tolerate.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on March 27, 2008 at 12:31 PM
This past week, it was also on TPT HD. When watching in high def, I stronly suggest following Lambert's example of fortification by having the best quality single malt you can afford nearby. In fact, have a few extra bottles standing by...you'll probably need it.
LAMBERT: I've gotta check in the increase in alcholic dependency over the last seven years.
Posted by: Tuned In on Washington on March 27, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Is the Green Zone, so to speak, that area of the Lambert homestead where you sleep off the 15 year Laphroaig, kept warm by the pages of yesterday's Strib?
LAMBERT: Personally, I prefer Oban, and "sleep" is a euphemism.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on March 28, 2008 at 8:44 AM
I trust we're all talking about drinking this stuff "neat"...right?
LAMBERT: Well, if you need a shot of Mountain Dew in yours we'll just pretend we don't know you, OK?
Posted by: Tuned In on Washington on March 28, 2008 at 10:28 AM