Evidence? For starters, consider that the theme of his column is based upon an analogy to Bill Clinton's presidency when it was at its political nadir (and no, not the part where Clinton was impeached for having received a blow job from Monica Lewinsky).

Like President Bill Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Bush has gone through a period of wrenching adjustment to his reduced status. But just as Clinton did in the winter of 1995, Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts.

I cannot imagine a more inappropriate, or perverse (to use Broder's term), analogy to employ with regard to President Bush's current political predicament. The only thing Bill Clinton and George Bush share in common is that each has held the office of President of the United States. In all other respects they are completely and utterly unlike one another. This isn't an "apples to oranges" category mistake by Broder, but an "apples to moon rocks" one. But wait. It gets worse:

When Bush faced reporters on Wednesday morning, he knew that virtually all those in the Democratic majority would be joined by a significant minority of Republicans in voting today to decry the "surge" strategy. He did three things to diminish the impact of that impending defeat.

I bet you can't imagine what Bush did that turned his impending doom into potential victory. Neither can I. I watched that press conference. It was an unmitigated disaster. Nonetheless, here are the three significant feats which Broder claims Bush accomplished with his "performance" before the White House Press Corps the other day:

First, he argued that the House was at odds with the Senate, which had within the past month unanimously confirmed Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new commander in Iraq ... Bush has made Petraeus his blocking back in this debate ...

You may be asking yourself how this benefited Bush in any way shape or form, and you would be right to do so. This amazing rhetorical feat by Bush (as Broder portrays it) is simply stunning, in that it accomplished nothing of any consequence whatsoever.

The House at odds with the Senate? This is news? This is proof of Bush's political smarts? Even when Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House, on any given day you could fairly make the argument that they were at odds with one another over some issue or other, and usually have no difficulty finding evidence to support your claim. This is complete nonsense (and yes, Broder actually called Petraeus Bush's "blocking back").

Second, he minimized the stakes in the House debate by endorsing the good motives of his critics, rejecting the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops' morale or embolden the enemy.

How noble. How above the fray. And what a brilliant tactical decision by Bush to allow his goons among the Republican Caucus and in the media to make this sleazy, vile and reprehensible argument on his behalf, so he could capture the moral high ground:

“I’d like to make a quote,” Young began after being granted his five minutes on the House floor. “‘Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.’”

The quote, Young said, came from Lincoln, “who had the same problem this president had with a very unpopular war, the same problem with people trying to redirect the commander-in-chief.”

However, the words Young attributed to Lincoln were written by J. Michael Waller, a professor at the Institute of World Politics. They metamorphosed into the illegitimate Lincoln quote on Dec. 23, 2003, in a column that Waller wrote for Insight, a conservative weekly magazine published by the owners of The Washington Times.

Yes, that was certainly "impressive" (to parrot Broder's own description of Bush's actions at Wednesday's press conference). But what was Bush's third major accomplishment? Well, I shan't keep you in suspense any longer ...

And third, by contrasting today's vote on a nonbinding resolution with the pending vote on funding the war in Iraq, he shifted the battleground to a fight he is likely to win -- and put the Democrats on the defensive.

Indeed. Democrats are so frightened of Bush's political ju-jitsu skills that John Murtha has decided to propose the following legislative action instead of simply de-funding the war:

By mid-March, Murtha will unveil legislation that he says would set such stringent rules on combat deployments that Bush would have no choice but to begin bringing troops home.

His legislation would dictate how long troops can stay, the equipment they use and whether any money could be spent to expand military operations into Iran. Murtha says few units could meet the high standards he envisions, meaning Bush's plan to keep some 160,000 troops in Iraq for months on end would be thwarted.

Under his plan, he says, Democrats would be helping and not hurting troops by making sure they have what they need before being thrown into combat.

“This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction of the war,” Murtha, D-Pa., told an anti-war group in an interview broadcast on the Internet Thursday.

“The president could veto it, but then he wouldn't have any money,” he later said.

I guess Bush really showed Murtha who's the boss, eh? I can just imagine former combat veteran Murtha cowering under his desk after Bush's masterful verbal agility put all Democrats on the defensive the other day. That Bush -- what a tiger!

Yet as moronic as Broder's colukmn has been up to this point, the following may be the lowest, most ridiculous portion of what can only be labeled as an inexplicable adoration of the President. You see, after watching Bush's press conference the other day Broder actually gives him high marks for being more "accessible" and "responsive" to the media, as well as the degree to which his answers to questions have been more "candid" than ever before. Answers to questions like this one, for example:

QUESTION: Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq -- specifically about WMD -- that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

BUSH: I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops.

And I'd like to repeat: I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of government.

But my point is: What's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it's happening?

And so we will continue to protect our troops.

Never mind that Bush never answered the question that was asked regarding whether he is using the same quality of intelligence regarding Iran that was used by his administration to mislead us into war with Iraq. Never mind that on the one hand Bush says he is certain Iran is providing weapons used to kill our troops, and on the other hand admits he has no proof that anyone in the upper echelon of the Iranian leadership ordered these weapons to be delivered to Iraqi Shi'a militias.

And never mind that he omits to tell us that the Saudis are funding the Sunni insurgency, which as Larry Johnson pointed out the other day is responsible (according to the administration's own numbers) for 92% of all US combat fatalities in Iraq. Broder presents answers like these as evidence of Bush's more responsive and candid dealing with the press, so it must be true -- if you happen to live in Broder's version of Bizzaro World, that is. I can only assume Lord Broder is delusional, lying or has decided to come out of the closet once and for all to expose himself as one of Bush's willing media sycophants. Or, as the title to this blog entry suggests, he's brain dead. Take your pick.

There's more material in Broder's column to take him to task for, such as his claim that Bush's statements demonstrate he has no intention of attacking Iran, only of protecting our troops in Iraq, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But by now I hope you've gotten my essential point.

Long ago Broder stopped being an effective and worthwhile political analyst, or even a well-informed and credible source of inside information regarding the movers and shakers in Washington. At this point, he is at best, an embarrassment. At worst...?

It's time to pull the plug on David Broder's career as a pundit. For everyone's sake.

Sincerely,

Steven D

David Broder George W. Bush Iraq Iran The Washington Post The Gang of 500