Dave pulls a turkey on John Murtha

Even without the extra helpings of turkey, mashed potatoes, and pumpkin pie, it would’ve been hard to stomach Dave’s column on Thanksgiving slamming Congressman John Murtha, and his plea to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Perhaps Dave’s not aware, but there is a new consensus forming in regards to Iraq. Somebody should wake him up and tell him. When the Senate votes by an overwhelming 79-19 margin that 2006 should be a ‘year of transition in Iraq,’ when a retired General from the far-right Hudson Group circulates a document titled ‘What’s Wrong with Cutting and Running’, when, as Reinhard’s infinitely superior counterpart David Sarasohn points out, 57 percent of the American people feel that this administration was ‘dishonest and reprehensible’ in how it led us into the Iraq war- that’s a solid footing for a new consensus developing saying that the current Iraq policy needs to be re-examined and some possible solutions need to be proposed. But along comes Dave with his trade-marked Republican pratice of playing partisan politics. Rather than discussing the quagmire Iraq has become, Dave instead chooses to smear a 37-year decorated Marine and Vietnam vet, who just so happens to be Democrat.

It seems awfully repetitive to state that Reinhard’s case is weak. But it is. As columnist E.J. Dionne pointed out: “[Bush] attacking Democrats who voted with him on the war and now have grave doubts about his policies, as Murtha does, is hardly a way for the president to buy himself maneuvering room in Iraq. It will be difficult for Bush's acolytes to cast Murtha, who regularly stood up for the military policies of Republican presidents during his 31 years in Congress, as some kind of extreme partisan or hippy protester.” Reinhard proceeds to do exactly that- attempt to portray Murtha as the hippiest of partisan leftists that the Democrats have in Congress.

This hippie Murtha was referred in the past week as a ‘patriot’ by Dick Cheney. In fact, Congressman Murtha might be the only Congressman to be able to call the Vice-President a ‘friend.’ The senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Murtha became known for his opposition to defense cuts, and his willingness to draft troops, if necessary. With strong ties to senior military officers and The Pentagon, it is little wonder that, as the Seattle Times points out, when Murtha spoke, people listened.

But Reinhard diminishes Murtha’s track record, using quotes when he refers to Murtha as a ‘hawk.’ Funny, I do the same thing when I refer to Reinhard as a ‘patriot.’

Reinhard points out that Murtha didn’t even vote for the resolution in the house that he proposed. Well, of course not. Why would he vote for a GOP-proposed, watered-down version of an amendment whose sole purpose for being proposed was to make him look bad? That would seem kind of silly, wouldn’t it? What Reinhard fails to say is that Republican leadership of the House forced Republican House members to stay late in the evening on Friday the 18^th- an evening that most Congressional leaders were hoping to leave town early for their Thanksgiving holiday- to vote on an amendment that smacks of political posturing. When Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass, yelled out “You guys are pathetic, pathetic!” at the Republican leadership, he sure hit the nail on the head.

Dave, ironically, goes on to list the various reasons why we can’t pull out of Iraq currently: it would risk creating a failed state; it would embolden terrorists. Funny, I could’ve sworn that’s what the Democrats were warning about before the Iraq invasion occurred, and were scoffed at with various dismissive comments such as “our troops will be there for weeks, not months”, “oil profits will pay for the invasion’, and, my favorite, “our troops will be greeted with candy and flowers.” Now, we’re supposed to take Dave seriously when he advises us to buck up for the long, hard slog? That any talk of immediate redeployment- even if its for the sake of making Iraqis realize that, golly, its their country and they better start standing up to take care of it- is too soon, despite the fact that a new consensus is forming that leads to an opposite conclusion? In his warnings that we bit off more than we can chew when it comes to invading Iraq, Dave sounds awfully like a Democrat, circa 2002.

Dave says: “We need more real debate on U.S. policy in Iraq. Not the fake debates of news conferences and talk-show chatter. Not more hollow talk or political sniping. We need debates of consequence and accountability. We need people to vote on their brave proposals. Why? Because the stakes are too high in Iraq in particular and the war on terror in general.” It would be nice if Dave followed his own advice, and abstained from partisan gain-saying. Otherwise, it’s impossible to take him seriously.

Dave gets his kicks from naked ten-year old chicks

During the summer, Dave wrote a piece that defended Judge John Roberts’ decision that constitutionally upheld Washington D.C.’s Metro police decision to search, hand-cuff, and put into a paddy wagon a 12-year old girl who ate an illegal French fry in a subway station. After writing last month that Dubya had the right to choose any nominee he wants, now that Harriet Miers has been refused an up-and-down vote by the Republican-run Senate- why do these obstructionists insist on not giving Bush’s nominees a vote?- Dave defends in his Sunday, November 20 column Judge Samuel Alito’s decision to uphold the strip search of a ten-year old girl in Pennsylvania.

That’s Dave for you. Attempting to take a high-road “moral values” stance while insisting that, yes, indeed, the framers of our Constitution wouldn’t bat an eye of such an intrusive police-state actions as the strip-search of a ten-year old girl.

Dave attempts to discredit an anti-Alito ad from “something” called the Coalition for a Fair & Independent Judiciary. (I may not be sure, Dave, but this “something” sounds like a coalition that promotes a fair and independent judiciary. And you know they’re biased when they use words like “fair” and “independent.”) Dave calls this ad a “Borker”- a reference to Judge Robert Bork, a failed Supreme Court in the 1980s. To “bork” is to “destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy" and, to Dave, the Coalition for a Fair & Independent Judiciary are taking the low road in making an ad that focuses on Judge Alito upholding the strip-search of a ten-year old girl.

But, the problem is, Dave admits that “technically, Alito did vote ‘to approve the strip search of a 10-year old girl.’” The only conclusion one can make is that Dave is wasting- again- precious space in The Oregonian that could better be utilized by an ad for Marion’s Carpet Warehouse or something.

But, Dave continues on with his specious argument. You see, the girl in question was the daughter of a drug-dealer. And, in Samuel Alito’s opinion, they are not covered by the U.S. Constitution. And Dave concurs.

The issue at hand is not the psychological trauma and scarring that this girl will have to deal with the rest of her life. The issue at hand is if the search warrant was legally issued, and the “scope of search authorized by the warrant”, a quote provided by Judge Michael Chertoff, current homeland security director.

Judge Alito found a “commonsense and realistic” reading of the search warrant, and found a Supreme Court precedent that required just such a reading. This reading was contained in the warrant’s language that “the magistrate intended to authorize a search of all occupants of the premises.”

So far Dave hasn’t quieted any concerns that a possible Supreme Court Justice Alito would seek to limit the over-zealousness of an out-of-control state apparatus with callous disregard for American citizens’ privacy in an attempt to build a criminal case against them. Dave neglects to discuss the warrant in question, simply Alito’s interpretation of it. For all we know, Alito may just be reading into the warrant what he needed to create a legal argument in favor of Officer Groody, who may have just been a sick pervert who got his kicks from naked ten-year old girls. Considering that Judge Alito’s opinion didn’t match that of the court’s majority opinion, it appears what Dave is describing as a flagrant and obvious case of legislating from the bench- you know, your standard conservative’s pet peeve.

Dave cites the dean of Lewis and Clark’s Law School, Jim Huffman, who says that Judge Alito is committed to the “precedent and principle of stare decisis.” However, your typical newspaper reader isn’t going to be familiar with legal terms or read Latin. For all we know, stare decisis may simply mean a “decisive stare”, a legalese way of saying that Alito likes to give his opponents the “evil eye.”

Dave tries to conclude with the reasoning that officers needed, in the midst and haste of an investigation, to search those in the house, as drug dealers may give contraband or evidence to them in hopes to those persons will not be searched. Regardless of the actual scope (not after-the-fact interpretation) of the search warrant, and regardless of what kind of effects strip-searches may have on ten-year old girls.

So, freedom of speech expressed by adults for adults in the ways of stripping and live sex shows should be constitutionally banned. But strip-searches of ten-year old girls? That’s fine and dandy. Such is the bizzaro world that conservatives live in….

David Reinhard- al Qaida sympathizer?

Dear lord.

Just when it seemed Dave’s disingenuous lack of credibility couldn’t reach any lower, along comes David with this nadir.

Veteran’s Day is a day to celebrate our troops, and the sacrifices they have made- in President Bush’s case, protecting Texas from Oklahoma during the Vietnam War. This holiday is not to be politicized by any President. The only thing a President should do is lay a wreath at Arlington Cemetery- not a duty to be left to Dick “five deferments due to more important things in Vietnam” Cheney. But in Dave’s world, the politicization of Veteran’s Day is fine and dandy.

No wonder our Iraq policy is a joke.

Dave states that Bush “stopped turning the other cheek and himself into a punching bag when called a liar.” Does he mean that Bush will stop using such slime tactics as using proxy groups- the Swift Boat Vets, say- to do the dirty work for him? Bush is now going to take on the critics that he claims are “revising history?” Oh, this will be a good one.

Who was it that said “we don’t need the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?” Could it be that despite all the tough-guy posturing of the neoconservatives who planned Dubya’s Excellent Iraqi Adventure, they were just afraid of a two-bit broken down tyrant on the other side of the planet whose neighbors weren’t even threatened by? (Sadam wrote romance novels, for crying out loud!) How’s that for “historical revisionism?”

Dave goes off on the issue of “patriotism.” Bush must be succeeding in the “thrust or parry”- interesting words to describe such an impotent administration- with his critics, because the critics accuse Bush of “criticizing their patriotism.” Since his critics say that, Bush must have the upper hand. Or something like that. Here, he makes his point clear with this gem: “The fact is that, since 9/11, we've seen far more Americans accusing other Americans of questioning their patriotism than we've seen Americans questioning other Americans' patriotism.” Yeah. Read it five times, and get back to me if you understand what the heck he’s saying.

He then cites Max Chambliss shamelessly comparing Max Cleland- a man who give three limbs for his country- to Osama bin Laden merely because Cleland wanted to ensure workers’ benefits in the creation of the single most largest government expansion in our nation’s history, as an example of Bush critics using the “questioning patriotism”, uh.... defense, I guess? I’m having trouble following Dave’s point here. If Dave’s attempting to argue for the Republicans’ sake, the citing of the slander of a Democrat war hero makes no sense to me. (And to further befuddle Oregonian readers- who Dave must simply view in a contemptuous manner- he cites Kerry voting for then-Defense Secretary Cheney’s defense budget in the early 90s. Again- point, please?) Perhaps I should check the National Review online and see what Dave read the day before. Perhaps then I’d get a better idea…

Dave writes: “…the left spends months saying Bush lied us into the war using bogus intel, an impeachable offense. Bush finally responds by noting the Clinton administration, foreign governments and Democrats all said Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction.” Disingenuous as usual. Dave fails to note that Bush is quoted as saying Clinton had “the same intelligence as I did.” Stop and consider that the intelligence Bush made the decision to go to war on was many years- if not nearly a decade- old you have to ask, again, what point is Reinhard making? Clinton looked at the intelligence and came to a conclusion: “Whoa. Saddam’s an evil dude, but nearly as bad a threat as he thinks he is. A concerted effort of sanctions, inspectors, and no-fly zones that drop bombs now and then will keep him in line. Saddam’s threat will reduce- and we won’t lose a single American life!” And that’s exactly what happened. Then, years later, Bush looked at Clinton’s old intelligence and came to a conclusion: “Whoa. This Saddam’s a bad dude, much bigger then he actually thinks he is. Our only choice? Invade. We’ll say we’re ‘spreading democracy’ years after the fact or something.”

I’m not revising history here. I am merely illustrating what the difference is between a pretty darn good President, and a mediocre one.

So, now that Reinhard brought up the dreaded specter of Clinton, you knew what was coming next. That’s right. 9/11. And they say Democrats have no new ideas.

The decision to go to war is the most important decision a President makes. Before making the decision, he must review all the facts, and examine all intelligence before making a decision that could cost the life of a single troop. Instead we had Cheney at CIA and Rummy at DIA bolstering a case out of thin air- modern-day illusionists. We had inspectors on the ground- and Bush told them to get out of the country as they were in the way of our bombs. But instead of laying criticism at Cheney, Rummy, or Bush, who does Dave target? Jay Rockefeller, the leading Democrat on the Senate Committee, because, somehow, it was his decision that led us to war. No, I kid. It’s because Jay is quoted as saying “can we afford to take that chance [of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction]? We cannot!”

Sadly, Jay was wrong. And so were a lot of other people. Vice President Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was not a threat. He said, “Saddam Hussein is bottled up.” Powell said before 2001, “We have kept Saddam contained, kept him in his box.” They went on to “historically revise” these statements after 9/11. And let’s not forget Rumsfeld’s infamous “We know where the weapons are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” This comment was wrong, either purposefully or naively. The key difference here, Rockefeller has since apologized for making wrong comments, and has refocused his efforts in a forward-thinking strategy to end this mess in Iraq and get our troops home. Rumsfeld still hasn’t apologized for being so incredibly wrong in regards to this war.

Rockefeller was responding for an Iraq invasion push that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz- the policy makers- were making. There was no debate, besides Robert Byrd’s speech on the floor of the Senate. There was only a head-long rush to war without an examination of the intelligence. Why? Because any dissent in the argument for war was viewed of being “unpatriotic.”

And that brings us full-circle. Reinhard incredulously quotes Samuel Johnson- "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" and states that Johnson would revise his saying, since “criticzing my patriotism” is all the rage these days. Considering that George W. Bush has started this unnecessary and ideologically driven war, resulting in a waste of an upwards of $200 billion; cost the lives of over 2,000 of our bravest American troops, most who are kids; morally bankrupted us, as we now have a “Vice-President of torture”; enflamed Muslim hatred around the world at the United States, considering a majority of Iraqis view the presence of U.S. troops as adding to the instability and insurgency; our continued presence in Iraq after the deposing of Saddam can only be viewed as an occupation to Iraq’s war neighbors; and al Qaida has thousands of new recruits, I can only come to one conclusion: the policies and the governance of George W. Bush is simply anti-American, supports terrorism, and assists al Qaida in their attempt to kill Americans. Any supporter of George W. Bush is a terrorist supporter and al-Qaida sympathizer.

How’s that for “questioning one’s patriotism?”

The...other cartoonist

Reprinted from http://myverybrain.blogspot.com/

Reinhard: The O's Other Editorial Columnist

And I mean no disrespect here to the consistently funny and sharp Jack Ohman, nor do I intend to diminish the profession of political cartooning. In fact, I wish I could do it...

Why is David Reinhard on the payroll? Seriously and politics aside, we're talking about a hack-tacular clown who simply recycles either RNC talking points or what he read the day before on National Review (NRO); I can't recall him producing an original thought or position in the past year, or anytime prior for that matter. Before finding NRO on my own, it's possible that Reinhard's biweekly musings would have served a purpose, but now that I know that it's there, I'm really puzzled by his continued employment.

If The O wants a conservative voice I say they save the money and continue pumping work from the NRO stable and save a buck or two. If they really want their own in-house conservative, I'd sooner recommend Darth Hick, an old haunt to this site, for their copy.

Anyway, the big picture point here is that David Reinhard does not provide service to The Oregonian's readers.

Still, while I'm hear, I do want to note a problematic mode of thinking revealed both in today's column by Reinhard, but also among our president's sometimes over-eager apologists. The crucial thing here is the point of view adopted in casting President Bush as a victim of politics. Never mind that, given how hard the GOP plays the politics game, this is absurd on its face. The bigger issue is the potential for this mentality to rally around a sinking ship means to the GOP as a party.

If I had a suggestion for GOP-folk, it would be this: do not defend every last thing this man does; and, no, freaking out on Miers isn't sufficient, politically, to demonstrate a thinking approach to the Bush presidency. Bush is a lot of things, but he's the victim of absolutely nothing that he, or his minions, have not directed at others. As I've argued before, Bush's problems in the polls are not the result of his critics attacks sticking. At present, the Bush administration is getting its ass kicked by reality. Moreover - or at least as I see it - Bush politics and policy have long enjoyed an uncomfortable relationship with reality so, on a deeper level, the sinking confidence in his presidency relates pretty directly to the end of the public's trust in his assurances that all his grand plans - and they've been nothing if not grand - will pan out all right.

And that brings us back to Reinhard's thinking and what it means for the GOP. Reinhard, based on today's column, intends to go down with the ship. But conservatives have a choice. Just because Bush believes some, or even perhaps most, of what you believe, that doesn't mean you owe him undying fealty. Personally, and as an admitted non-conservative, I view him as not only a lousy president, but as an impatient, petulant man who doesn't understand policy and who shows little interest in learning about it. Even so, this isn't arguing, in my mind, that he doesn't support valid policy concepts, but it's arguing that his intellectual and habitual limitations mean that he's less likely - and putting on my "liberal cap" again, I'd go so far as incapable - to put translate those policy concepts into working policy.

In other words, giving up on Bush doesn't mean giving up on the ideas with which he's associated. I'd think that's readily apparent to anyone, but, based on some of the behaviors I see, a fair number of conservatives don't get that.

Dave teaches us about credibility.

A point needs to be made, again, about David Reinhard’s timeliness. For a Sunday opinion column, Dave had a number of events from the past week to write about. For example, he could’ve spun the success of the Democrats in the first post-Plamegate election on Tuesday, or he could’ve written about how the week’s deadly explosions in Jordan necessitated continued support for Dubya’s unending “war on terror.” Instead, what we are treated to is this column, detailing an event that happened nearly eight months ago!
In short- boy misses flight from LA to Portland; boy’s name matches one on a terror “watch list”; boy is able to catch later flight to Portland; boy calls father before catching the Portland- bound flight; father contacts the media; the media awaits boy upon arrival at PDX. Oh, and the boy’s father was Shahriar Ahmed, a prominent leader in Portland’s Muslim community.
Reinhard attempts to make a case that Shahriar Ahmed, a visible leader in the Muslim community- a leader that works as a bridge between Portland Muslims and the FBI- lost credibility as he trumped up “bogus” charges over the incident at LAX. However, there was an incident at LAX: the name of Shahriar’s son- Shehab- matched a name on the terror watch list.
Reinhard writes: “And here's what did not happen: Ahmed wasn't on the watch list or put on it. He was not told he couldn't fly home; he was allowed on the flight he wanted to be on after providing ID. He wasn't yanked out line or taken to a special room for questioning by government agents. In fact, government agents -- TSA personnel -- were not involved in any of this. “ Nowhere prior to this paragraph did Dave state that either Shahriar or his son make claims that such events had happened, so this paragraph appears to be disingenuous. What was stated was that Shehab’s name matched one on the terror list - the UCLA student is quoted as saying "To know that the government puts me on the list as bin Laden and whatnot . . . that's scary”- but he was allowed to fly home. (False matches have happened before, remember. Somehow Senator Ted Kennedy’s name had brought positive matches as well.)
Does Shahriar’s reaction deserve the Reinhard treatment many months later? Would not any father react in a similar manner- a point that Reinhard admits to, albeit at the end of his column, after lambasting Shahriar for his actions repeatedly throughout?
Most fathers would not have connections with the local media, but due to Shahriar’s standing, he did. In a decision fueled by irrational emotion, he used them. Shahriar is not at fault for the local media’s inability to follow-up a story. An opportunity was missed by Reinhard to rant on the death of investigative journalism here, as a simple phone call to LAX would have given reporters at channel 6 and 8 the conclusion that there was no incident to report and that they were responding to a hysterical father. However, if reporters fail to follow up any leads in today’s non-stop media barrage, then they fail to do their jobs.
But transferring fault onto Portland’s listless local media would detract from Reinhard’s goal of attempting to besmirch Shahriar Ahemd’s credibility as a leader in Portland’s Muslim community. And “credibility” is the issue here, as Reinhard attempts to make the case that Shahriar has lost his. Reinhard’s conception of credibility, and how it is lost, is- to me- a funny thing. As I wrote in an earlier post, “The lies by Bush, Cheney, Rove & Libby have led to the deaths of over 2,000 of our bravest American soldiers. When that happens, you lose credibility.” Reinhard has used the op-ed page of The Oregonian as the means to make his case apologizing for the actions of the Bush administration over the past five years. Dubya has had many opportunities to apologize for the mistakes he has made, but his continued arrogant insistence that he has done nothing wrong has led to an increase in the number of Americans who have lost credibility in our country’s leader.
Reinhard writes that Shahriar apologized for his emotional over-reaction to his son- albeit sheepishly, months later, and only when confronted by Dave. The reason why Shahriar didn’t apologize sooner? He wanted the issue to go away. Is that why we haven’t heard an apology from Dubya for dragging us into an ill-conceived and poorly-executed war in Iraq? Is Dubya waiting for the Iraq issue to eventually go away as well?
Reinhard attempts to give Oregonian readers a lesson on credibility: if you apologize, you aint got none. But if you don’t, then you have credibility to spare. Sorry, Dave, I aint buying it….

White House attack? With what? For what?

You can’t accuse David Reinhardt of being timely. It took two weeks, but after his fascination with psychic environmentalists comes Plamegate, and how it’s causing the Republican Party to sink like a stone. As he gave himself plenty of time, you would think his offering would be better than this.

Dave begins by stating that October 28, 2005, was a “bad day for Democrats” because Scooter Libby was indicted, and not Karl Rove. Fitzgerald had said, “Had witnesses testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, we would’ve had indictments in October 2004, not 2005.” Considering how things went for Democrats in the first post-Libby indictment, one could only imagine how 2004’s presidential elections would’ve played out. In such a scenario, Kerry would’ve been elected- but don’t worry. Ol’ Dave would be here to remind us what a “bad day for Democrats” that would’ve been as well.

Republican leaders are asking why Rove continues to work at the White House. To quote Trent Lott: “Should political advisors be making policy?” Harry Reid was forced to close the door of the Senate to take Republicans to task- and rightfully so. Is it the fact that the Democrats are showing some signs of actual leadership- showing that, yes indeedy, they do have balls- that upsets Dave so much?

Dave recommends the White House go on a counteroffensive, something that they “try sometime.” Swift Boat Vets, anyone?

What does Dave mean by stating that the public will “inevitably” come to the conclusion that Bush lied? Of course it was inevitable, Dubya has done nothing but lied his entire political career. From running for Congress in 1978 to his days as Governor to currently occupying the White House, the only constant for Dubya is the fact that he has been a pathological liar. Presently, a plurality of poll respondents indicate a historic low approval rating for the President, a high percentage believe that Libby knowingly misled Fitzgerald’s investigation, and that Plamegate is of more importance than the Lewinsky “scandal.” (As Plamegate has to do with national security, I can understand.) The lies by Bush, Cheney, Rove & Libby have led to the deaths of over 2,000 of our bravest American soldiers. When that happens, you lose credibility. The Democrats “raising a stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA link”- Trent Lott’s words again- have nothing to do with the White House’s low approval ratings. The fault lies entirely on themselves.

Dave says that the “real tragedy” of this whole affair as that White House members discussed people of such “stripe” as Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. I bet there are over 2000 families that would beg to differ….

Dave brings up some good questions: If that was the “real” tragedy, why did administration officials in the White House discus Joe and Val at all? Why was Valerie exposed? Why did Libby lie and obstruct Were they trying to hide something, and if so, what was it? Does Dave offer any answers to these questions? Of course not. As the apologist he is, he ignores them….

Wilson reported, no matter how Dave tries to spin it, that he found no evidence of Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium in Niger. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief-of-staff, has detailed the Cheny-Rumsfeld “cabal” in the White House that pushed for an invasion into Iraq- did Dave miss this bit of news? Cheney would regularly go into the CIA, view the raw information, and choose that which supported his assertion that invasion was necessary. Rumsfeld relied on the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency to help bolster his case. And let’s not forget Tony Blair’s “dossier” of outdated information claiming that Saddam was an “eminent” threat. So after the policy-makers cherry-pick and rely on outdated info, there wouldn’t be room for Joe Wilson’s report that has contrary findings. As such, rather than having an open ear at the State Department, Pentagon, or the White House, Joe had to turn to the op-ed page of the New York Times, months after the fact, about a little thing of Saddam’s lack of weapons, or attempts to seeking weapons. How many American lives were lost during those months? Dave cites the fact that the Senate found “no evidence” that pre-war intelligence had been politicized, even though contrary intelligence wasn’t included and CIA officers complained of Cheney’s meddling. Of course the Republican-run Senate committee would come to such conclusions. Sen. Roberts and company wouldn’t be expected to portray Cheney in a bad light, could they?

Then Dave makes a spin for the absurd. Despite spending nine paragraphs attempting (horribly, might I add) that the White House had not manipulated intelligence, but if they had they would not be alone, as Clinton administration officials said same thinga. Once again David retreats to the tired “blame Clinton” ground. Sure, Clinton and other officials stated that Saddam was a “bad man”- which he was. But they did not manipulate intelligence to make a case for war- because there wasn’t. Big difference. Then Dave uses pre-invasion statements of high-ranking Democrat Senators- John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller- warning about Saddam after seeing the same out-dated and cherry-picked intelligence used to make a case for war. If the intelligence was manipulated to only bring one conclusion- which it was- why is it such a surprise that Kerry and Rockefeller came to that conclusion? Dave is playing a disingenuous game of “gotcha” here, one that I can play as well. Who said that Saddam Hussein is “bottled up” and “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction?” Why, that would be none other than Dick Cheney and Colin Powell in early 2001. Of course, after 9/11 they’re singing a different tune…

Dave ends his latest prattle by saying the White House should “fight back” against Rockefeller’s, the high-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, supposed hypocrisy. One problem, though. When Republican leaders are raising questions about his political advisor, when the indictment of his Vice-President’s chief of staff pushes his Supreme Court justice off the front page, when a free-trade talk allows him to flee the country shortly after the indictments of administration insiders, when the international community snickers when he says “We do not torture”- I have to ask: what does Dubya and the White House have to fight with, or, even, for?

In his latest column, David Reinhard comes across looking like a disingenuous apologist. Yet again.

true_slicky 11.11.05

Back on the attack!

RNC Memo to All Dittoheads: ATTACK!

In Reinhard's latest article he paints the liberals as miserable, wallowing in their defeat because of the Plamegate scandal.

Uh, maybe he doesn't actually TALK to any liberals, but the many that I know were really happy about this.

Anyway, he tries to make it sound like we were all boo-hooing over Karl Rove not being indicted, sore losers that we are, crying and weeping that the master propagandist is not being even censured for lying the country into a war. Liberals just go too far sometimes, dont they?

Completely ignoring Harry Reid's new testicles, Reinhard makes liberals out to be whiners on the losing side of Plamegate--and to prove it, he goes off on a rampage of attacks on Joseph Wilson that have nothing to do with the outing of his wife, a CIA agent.

Why bother defending yourself, or your corrupt party, when you can change subjects and go back on the attack?