Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The only alternative is to dispute the facts and hope people don't see their flip-flopping for what it is. More accurately, they will be forced to 'cloud and distort' -- tried and true Rovian tactics traditionally held in combination with character assassination and the like. So much for tradition. Now they'll have to work all alone.

And THAT will be a tough trick, particularly as administration members are still on the defense after the partial release last week of a National Intelligence Estimate "that pokes big holes in Bush's rationale for the conflict." And, in turn, buttresses Woodward's claims.

But this time, they're on their own. The administration's prior bona fides for Woodward coupled with well-documented facts bind the administration, disallowing them from turning on Woodward the messenger.

Or so you'd think...

Despite all this, they tried it anyway!! Here they were this past weekend claiming they 'knew all along' he was going to pull something like this:

Dan Bartlett made his case on ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation and CNN's Late Edition. Typical of Bartlett's argument was his assertion on ABC that:

"...as we worked with Bob on this project from the very outset, it was unfortunate that we felt he had already formulated some conclusions even before the interviewing began. ... After reading this book over the weekend, I was really struck by the fact that the central thesis of this book, the claim that the President was in 'a state of denial,' that he was misleading the American people about what was happening in Iraq, quite frankly, is not backed up with the own facts that are in the book."

So they knew Bob was as 'accurate' as they come, but apparently they also knew that he was going to shaft them with his clearly preconceived notions. Puh-lease!

Unfortunately, Dan couldn't cite any Woodward facts that were 'not backed up'. Bartlett knew there were no factual assertions made in the book that were not documented. Woodward would have nothing to gain from such a reputation-busting move.

So there is the conundrum. When Paul O'Neill left office -- it was not without burned bridges. At that point, sour grapes were expected and relatively easy to dismiss.

Woodward, on the other hand, was praised by the administration and vilified by the political left for his apparent support for Bush. He's a star investigative reporter still remembered for his work on Watergate, and still trusted by mainstream America. Because of that, most of America perceives Woodward's assertions not as those of an attacking partisan, but rather as a purveyor of truth. This aura of non-partisanship gives Woodward's stance the potential to be the most damaging among the volumes of administration-critical publications released in recent years.

Ohhhhhh Bobby, what to do with you?

Could this be yet another corrupt presidency you'll bring down?