As we enter the 723rd "major public-relations offensive to strengthen support for the Iraq War," it's good to see the media wizening up a bit to the ghastly insinuations and accusations spit out by the increasingly desperate administration. The Bushies' new tactic seems to rely on suggestions that Democrats plan to block all war appropriations, starving the troops of supplies, armor, and munitions so they lose the war, and thus retreat, faster. Happily, Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post seem to have found that one a headscratcher, and asked for some clarification.
Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Ah ha! The dreaded "logical interpretations" gambit. I'm looking forward to the next press conference, when Rummy drags out a chalkboard and treats the American people to an ontological primer so we're better equipped to follow future speeches.
In any case, none of this seems like a very big deal to me. If Dems cut off the money, well, the soldiers can always take out loans...
