Pre-emptive strike on RNC video

Is it possible I can post this even before McSykes & Co. begin to tout the new RNC video about Democrats and Iraq?

The right-wing blogs are all over it, claiming it shows that if W lied about the war, Democrats did, too, or some such drivel.

Here are a few insightful comments on the video -- not from some Democratic apologist, but from a usually credible source, if Rs admit there are any in the mainstream media any more -- The Note, produced by ABC News' political unit:

The RNC today has released a Web video which paints Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after having warned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction before the war began.

The video includes footage of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, former President Clinton, then-Gov. Howard Dean (from Canadian TV in 1998!), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Foreign Relations Ranking Member Joe Biden (D-DE), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).

The video ends with an excerpt from President Bush's Veterans Day speech in which he excoriates his Democratic opponents.

It's an impressive collection of video and a clear sign that the RNC is prepared to do combat on Iraq not only with the newly re-assertive Democratic congressional leadership but also with several potential Democratic '08ers.

It should be Noted, however, that the video is misleading in two ways: first, the President's Veterans Day speech is used to suggest that all the Democrats featured in the video voted for the war — an implication that is not true.

Second, the RNC video implies that all of the Democrats shown in the video have turned against the Iraq war — something that's also not true.

To illustrate point number one, take Leader Pelosi.

The video shows Pelosi telling NBC's Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that Saddam Hussein "certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

But Pelosi voted against the war. As she told ABC News in an on-camera interview for "World News Tonight" last week: "The intelligence never said that whatever Saddam Hussein was doing posed an imminent threat to the United States and I guess because he knows he is wrong he has to flail out and attack others."

Or take Sen. Clinton: In the Web video, Russert asks her if she thinks disarmament is possible without regime change. She answers: "I doubt it" and adds that she can support the President and that she thinks what he is doing is in the "long-term interests" of the country.

The implication from showing this video is that Sen. Clinton has flipped — but she hasn't.

Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

When the two met in September, Sheehan was hoping that Sen. Clinton would support her call to bring the troops home. But Sen. Clinton refused to do so, telling the Village Voice: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you."

Having highlighted the RNC's misleading implications, it's worth taking a moment to consider why the RNC's political strategy just might make sense for the GOP.

By lumping together several Democrats with different attitudes towards what constitutes the legitimate use of force (i.e., do you pursue a policy of containment and reserve the use of force for imminent threats or do you preemptively try to head off "gathering" threats by force of arms?), the RNC knows that it is making it difficult for the Democrats to provide a check on the current course of the war without exposing the tensions that exist within the Democratic Party.

UPDATE: I did beat Bush's chief Wisconsin flack, Charlie Sykes, but only by half an hour. He's dutifully posted it and is toeing the party line, of course. His post is titled, "Bush Lied?" Yes, Bush lies and Sykes swears to it.