A commenter asked me yesterday what I thought would make a plausible legal defense of the RMA program. I claimed to be at a loss. I've been thinking about it, and I think I should try to do better. Anticipating defense strategies is part of my job, after all.

So far we've heard three distinct categories of defense argument, including a new one, today.

1. "The RMA's weren't shilling for the administration. They are independent thinkers, fine men, and patriots." This was the defense put forth by Brian Williams, and in a more incoherent manner, Larry Di Rita ("We had some critics in the program, including these two guys, who by the way I NEVER said were part of the program").

I guess we can now add Brig. Gen. Jim Cash to this camp, who offers this calm, thoughtful response to the Barstow piece: "FOLKS, THE PENTAGON HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY DECISION TO SUPPORT WHAT IS RIGHT WITH AMERICA!!!!!"

Clearly his independence is unquestionable. Seriously, ya gotta read this guy to believe him:

http://gatheringofeagles.org/2008/05/02/the-value-of-military-analysts/

2. "Of course this was a propaganda campaign, wasn't that OBVIOUS??" AKA the famous Shooter242 Defense. So far, Shooter is alone in offering this line of defense, for fairly obvious reasons, among them, the fact that the disclosed documents squarely contradict it, if Di Rita admitted it he would go to jail, and if Brian Williams said it he would be out of a job tomorrow.

Today, we have a new defense!

3. "I don't think that should be against the law" offered by WH flack Dana Perrino.

I think we have a winner! For what it's worth, folks, my money is on Door Number Three.

"What? We've been caught dead to rights breaking the law? No problem. We'll just get Congress to change the law, and then we'll grant immunity to anyone from the admin who violated it before it was changed. What, we don't control Congress anymore? No problem, we'll just browbeat them into it by painting them as unpatriotic military-hating terrorist lovers."

It's worked for them before, so you can't blame them for trying it again.

While I'm sure you're a gangbusters prosecutor, I know that prosecutors are political creatures.

You are correct, Grasshopper! My boss was elected, we prosecutors are political appointees, and as people we tend to be political creatures.

Politically conservative.

Learn something new every day, dontcha, pal?

The logical fallacy you fell into, here, is the assumption that any Bush critic must be liberal by definition. Are you really that myopic that you hadn't noticed the admin has plenty of conservative critics?

Are you really unaware of the sentiment that the Bushies aren't true conservatives? Yeah, you're probably one of those people that thinks Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil were"left-wing foamers."

So let's see, the networks ask the Pentagon for commenters. The Pentagon complies and gives extra information to the people it likes, to make them more attractive......

That's a great defense! Only a couple of problems. First, it assumes facts not in evidence. Who said the retired generals were supplied by the Pentagon at the networks' request?

Also, everyone else defending the program, specifically Brian Williams and Di Rita, are making quite a different argument than you, namely, that the retired personnel were in fact independent analysts. And there's a reason they're not making your boneheaded argument, namely (and I don't know how many times I've typed this today) the statements by the program participants disclosed in the released documents concede the effort to make the generals appear independent although that was not the case. You still haven't reconciled your argument with those published admissions, and you have zero credibility with me until you do.

See what happens when you don't make it to all the meetings? You should really read the memos...

These arguments tend to come from RWA pages with some personal interpretation. So I think the apparent intelligence of his posts is an indication of how successful the RWAs are at countering reality.

I think that's right. The point in engaging the rightwingers here has nothing to do with trying to change their minds. It has nothing to do with them, personally, at all. It's a useful way to keep up on the RW arguments and working out the best ways to counteract them.

It is interesting when multiple, incoherent defenses are thrown about: notice that Di Rita's defense ("Hey! We had critics in the program, too - not that I ever said those critics were in the program, I mean, uh, uh") squarely contradicts Shooter's ("Of course it was a propaganda campaign, gee, wasn't that OBVIOUS??").

I actually interact with a lot of politically conservative people in my life, and they are actually much tougher debaters than the clowns that troll around here. I guess that's like batting practice - it's not like it's so hard to hit a BP pitch, but it keeps you in form.

I liked the Wyle E. Coyote image of the RW troll that someone conjured here recently. I think of the blow-up Bozo clown that we keep here in our office - you know the one, with the sand-weighted rounded bottom. You punch it and it goes down real easy, just to come bobbing back up wearing that same moronic grin...