December 24, 2003
December 22, 2003
The butler did it
Rush Limbaugh paid "substantial" blackmail to a former maid before she told law enforcement and a tabloid newspaper about his addiction to prescription painkillers, his attorney told a judge Monday.So, Limbaugh, who recently returned from drug rehab, claiming he has fixed his problem and done nothing wrong, now claims that he was being blackmailed by his maid with threats of going to the National Enquirer to tell them all about the things he claims weren't worthy of investigation in the first place.
Limbaugh's attorneys outlined a defense against accusations that he illegally used prescription painkillers and laundered money to finance his drug habit.
Black said Limbaugh suffered from a degenerative disc disease with "pain so great at one point doctors thought he had bone cancer," and that Limbaugh chose to take addictive painkillers rather than have surgery.
Surgery would have meant doctors would have gone through Limbaugh's throat to operate on his spine, which could threaten his career as a commentator, Black said.
Limbaugh's former maid, Wilma Cline, learned of his addiction and threatened to sell the story to The National Enquirer. She and her husband, David Cline, demanded millions and were "paid substantial amounts of money," the lawyer said.
So here's the story: we know Rush went to rehab. He confessed to illegal painkiller addiction. Rush and his legal spokesmen, however, claim charges against him are meritless. However, he was afraid the meritless charges would ruin him should they become public in the bastion of damning unimpeachable investigative reporting that is the National Enquirer. What we need to understand is that Limbaugh was in immense physical pain coupled with the emotional pain of his blackmail, and as such should in no way be put forth to the torture of letting authorities see his financial and medical records, which of course show no wrongdoing whatsoever, especially a kind that he was paying off his maid to not talk about.
Limbaugh is either lying and thinks we're all idiots, or is telling the truth and is clearly the stupidest man on the face of the earth.
Update: More from TalkLeft.
Ummm.... he's evil too, George.
Not much to say about the recent news that Libya is disarming that Billmon hasn't covered:
OK everybody, repeat after me:Libya is a nation that sponsored terrorism (using civilian airplanes, no less), actively used chemical weapons in combat, and regardless of now disarming will still be led by a murderous dictator who rules a one-party state and oppresses his people. Exactly why was a Coalition of the Willing not required for this that was unavoidable in Iraq?
Saddam baaaad. Ghadafi goooood.
And that unpleasant business about blowing an American airliner out of the sky? Or that disagreeable incident with the bomb in the Berlin disco? All forgotten and forgiven. Heck, what's a few minor acts of terrorism between friends, anyway.
And the one-party police state? The cult of personality? The torture chambers? The aggression against neighboring countries? Old news. It's time to "move on."
And how can the administration be sure the "wise and responsible" Colonel Ghadafi has revealed all? Because we sent in the weapons inspectors, of course ... Thus proving that inspections can locate weapons facilities, verify compliance and detect violations -- unless, that is, the country being inspected is Iraq, in which case inspections are completely useless and war unavoidable.
Over the next couple of days, it will be facinating to see how quickly the conservative agitprop machine can conform to the new line. While detente with Libya isn't quite as drastic a policy backflip as the Hitler-Stalin pact, it could be a tough mouthful to chew and swallow for an audience that's been conditioned to rank Ghadafi second only to Saddam in the League of Evil Villains, insane Arab dictator division. The White House certainly understands this, which must be why they slotted Bush's announcement into the usual Friday afternoon dead zone.
I can only shake my head at the incredible twists and turns in what passes for the Bush administration's foreign policy. It was just a few short weeks ago that Bush was vowing to end America's past practice of overlooking the sins of odious regimes -- as long as they were willing to serve U.S. interests.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm thrilled to hear that Libya is disarming and I applaud the administration for its steps to get this done. I'm just curious as to why this couldn't have been done in Iraq. A couple hundred dead soldiers might be too, except, you know, they're dead.
It's amazing and kind of sad at the same time that something like this won't affect the warfloggers in any way. Honestly, Bush's treatment of Libya clearly flies in the face of every pundit who cowered behind flowing speeches about the horrors of Saddam's regime and the need to remove dictators and "free the people."
Hey, Joe Lieberman, look at this! If Howard Dean was president, Bush would still be keeping Ghadafi in power! Comments? No? I didn't think so.