Catapulting the Propaganda

Dan Bartlett on the insaneosphere:

That's what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

Why would you expect anything different to come out of an authoritarian, top-down movement? They do what they're told.

Out Come The Knives

You didn't think that a few brusque words from Alberto Gonzales saying "mistakes were made" and the White House trying to circle the wagons with dubious statements was going to work, did you?

Now John Sununu wants my main man Abu G. out. Boo yah ka shah.

Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Sununu joins Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and a host of others. But Sununu being a Republican, it has the potential to be a dam burst.

By the way, look at this up-is-down quote from Dan Bartlett:

“The White House did not play a specific role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,” said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s counselor, referring to a Justice Department roster of those to be dismissed. But he said the White House, through Ms. Miers’s office, ultimately “signed off on the list.”

We didn't play a specific role, we just specifically signed off on the list.

(shaking head to make jowls move)

What hinted in the above article, however, is that "there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now," which, combined with the Sununu announcement, means that the Attorney General will have a short shelf life.

Josh Marshall takes another stab at explaining what this whole thing is about.

(former US Attorney Carol) Lam's firing has always been at the heart of this. I've had a lot of people ask me why we devoted so much virtual ink to this story so early. But the truth is that by rights Lam's dismissal should have sounded alarm bells for everyone on day one.

What people tend to overlook is that for most White Houses, a US attorney involved in such a politically charged and ground-breaking corruption probe would have been untouchable, even if she'd run her office like a madhouse and was offering free twinkies to every illegal who made it across the border. Indeed, when you view the whole context you see that the idea she was fired for immigration enforcement is just laughable on its face. No decision about her tenure could be made without the main issue being that investigation. It's like hearing that Pat Fitzgerald was fired as Plamegate prosecutor for poor deportment or because he was running up too many air miles flying back and forth from Chicago.

Lam's investigation (and allied ones her probe spawned) were uncovering a) serious criminal wrongdoing by major Republican power players on Capitol Hill, b) corruption at the CIA -- which reached back to the Hill, c) and as yet still largely hidden corrupt dealings at the heart of the intelligence operations in the Rumsfeld Pentagon.

Nothing matters unless the investigation gets to the heart of what happened there.

If it does get there, it'll be without Abu Gonzales to guide it.

Bush Vows to De-Fund Troops In The Field

We have the first White House reaction to the Democrats' latest plan to require the fully funded withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq by next fall at the latest. Dan Bartlett said they would veto it - and since it's attached to a funding bill for the war, they're essentially saying that they would de-fund troops in harm's way instead of acquiescing to public opinion on the war.

It's essential that our Democratic leaders put the White House in this box.

Here are the quotes from Bartlett:

Senior White House adviser Dan Bartlett, accompanying Bush on a flight to Latin America, told reporters, "It's safe to say it's a nonstarter fot the president." [...]

Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Bartlett called it "a political compromise in the Democratic caucus of the House aimed at bringing comity to their internal politics, not reflective of the conditions on the ground in Iraq."

"It would unnecessarily handcuff our generals on the ground, he said. "Obviously, the administration would vehemently oppose and ultimately veto any legislation that looks like what was described today."

The US Troop Readiness, Veteran's Health and Iraq Accountability Act is attached to a supplemental funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation is being offered by the Congress, the body that controls wartime spending for the US government, and Congress is willing to pass it with conditions based on their Constitutional responsibility. Anyone who votes no or vetoes this legislation is de-funding the troops in a time of war. That's the god's-honest truth.

Bottom line.

Put that in your letters to the editor. Write it in your blog posts. Send emails to every political reporter in the country. The President is threatening to deny badly needed funds to US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two can play at this rhetorical game.

UPDATE: Why are conservatives never scared by this kind of implication? Do they know that the media is in the tank for them? Have they manufactured this "Republicans love the troops" bias so much that they think it's impenetrable? Do they play the Democrats for sissies? Whatever the case, they're probably correct. But Democrats have a clear shot to make them pay.