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