Letters I've written to the Oregonian:David Reinha...

2005-12-06T18:57:00.000-08:00

Letters I've written to the Oregonian:

David Reinhard's column of Novermber 10 (A Counterattack in the war over the war) is nothing but a series of lies and distortions too numerous to list in a single letter. Here's just a few.
The Friday of Scooter Libby's indictment was "a tough day for Democrats." Pure spin. They need more tough days like that.
"There was no violation of the Espionage Act or Intelligence Identities Protection Act." Completely false. There were no charges brought, because Libby's lying impeded the investigation.
He says the White House hasn't defended itself since 2004. Absurd on its face.
He cites the Robb-Silberman Commission report as evidence that the administration didn't pressure intelligence analysts regarding Iraq. But even that widely ridiculed report stated that "There is no doubt that analysts operated in an environment shaped by intense policymaker interest in Iraq."
Then he gives yet another version of the Republican tactic of saying that because Democrats were fooled by them about Saddam's nuclear program, they're guilty too. The logic escapes me.
If Reinhard were a true patriot, he'd be more interested in learning the truth than using new lies to defend old ones.

Columnist David Reinhard served up a big plate of lies and distortion to the Oregonian's readers this Thanksgiving. His main premise is that House GOP leaders took seriously the proposal by Rep. John Murtha (D, Penn.) to redeploy U.S. forces in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." That is nonsense. The Hayworth amendment was a stripped-down sham version of Murtha's carefully reasoned proposal, designed to fail. He concedes that "maybe there was a bit of partisan gamesmanship involved." In fact, there was nothing else to it.
Piling on the hypocrisy, he says "we need more real debate on U.S. policy in Iraq," echoing recent statements by Bush and Cheney. Then he repeats the Republican talking-points angle of calling Murtha's proposal a "surrender". A military force that surrenders must lay down it's arms, put up it's hands, and submit to the orders of the forces to which it is surrendering. No one is suggesting that anything like that is going to happen.
Ironically, another article in that day's edition stated that the "Bush administration is making plans to withdraw tens of thousands of U.S. troops from Iraq beginning early next year." Is the President surrendering? Reinhard's disgraceful column shows clearly that Republicans don't want a "real debate."

David Reinhard's column of June 30 was a pathetic disgrace to the Oregonian. His mindless, devotional gushing over the President must mean he is applying for a job with Fox News.
Where Reinhard heard "hard-hitting elegance," I detected inarticulate sophistry. He calls Bush's speech "plain-spoken, candid, and direct" when it was misleading, devious, and muddled. And calling it "eloquent" just shows how much Bush has distorted perception of the word's true meaning.
Please find a conservative columnist who can provide insight and persuasion, and who shows some ability to comment intelligently on current events, instead of automatic attacks on liberals and praise for conservatives in every case.

Comments on Down With Reinhard!: White House attack? With what? For what?

Letters I've written to the Oregonian:David Reinha...