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.

Does anyone else find it bizarrely amusing that the RW was forced to coin the rhetorical ploy of accusing their critics of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

I mean, think for a moment how that will look in the history books: "President Bush's defenders at the time noted how roughly half of the American population was so acutely distressed by Mr. Bush's actions and demeanor that they appeared to become 'deranged' at the mere mention of his name."

As a defense strategy doesn't it reflect rather poorly on Mr. Bush? "Yep, he was such a good leader he drove half the country out of their fuckin' minds! Let's put him on Rushmore!"

But, what else can they say when over 80% of American say the country is heading in the wrong direction and Boosh's approval rating hits an all-time low of 31%?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051201073.html?hpid=topnews (or click on my sig)

NYT:

Since the beginning of his campaign for president, Mr. Obama has combated rumors and e-mail campaigns suggesting that he was a Muslim or was hostile to Israel, a problem exacerbated by pro-Palestinian remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And here I was thinking, well, at the least the silver lining in the whole Rev. Wright media frenzy was that it would finally dispel the notion that Obama is Muslim.

Y'know, in that it was the Reverend Wright Controversey, not the Mullah Wright Controversy. But I guess a lot of people are just that stupid.

Why does Tom Friedman think he can tell us "what 9/11 was all about" by roaming around the "Arab-Muslim world" asking people about it? Did these "people" attack us?

Osama bin Laden personally directed the nineteen hijackers. He had issued a fatwa to kill Americans and their allies in order to "liberate" the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Mecca) "from their grip" (his words). He has specifically mentioned the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (the holiest land in Islam) as his motive for commanding the attacks. He said he chose to destroy the towers after watching Israel destroy towers in Lebanon in 1982.

That's "what 9/11 is all about", Tom. U.S. boots on the ground in holy Islam.

The media's obstinate refusal (typified by Klein's and Williams' dismissiveness) to investigate and report on this potential blockbuster of a story is making me enormously suspicious.

There's no possibility of criminal liability for the press here. Even if they knowingly went along with the DoD program - i.e., held out these retired military analysts as unaffiliated and independent with the knowledge that the Pentagon was pulling their strings - that's unethical and sloppy, yes, but there are no criminal (or civil) penalties.

If they didn't know they were being duped, it's a little embarassing for them, but I still fail to see how that should preclude them for ripping into this story.

There's the sentiment out there "this story isn't getting legs because nobody's that surprised" that the RMA's were DoD sockpuppets, but that completely misses the point. Covert domestic propaganda programs using taxpayer funds are illegal. Whether anybody fell for it is completely immaterial.