It's official. Karl Rove said so, as noted in this report in the Austin American-Statesman:

"All major news organizations now blog," Rove said.

He also declared most of us extinct (though he had trouble remembering the name of the news organization that, per Ana's post below, gave the Republicans the gift of "slow bleed"):

Rove said he would not be surprised if Politics.com, a fledgling Web-based operation focused on U.S. politics, contributes to the fast fadeaway of Washington bureaus staffed by reporters for regional newspapers.

A report in the Army Times suggests the Pentagon has finally figured out they have a shameful problem on their hands at Walter Reed. The problem: too much talking to the media.

The Politico's John Harris explains how soundbites are born:

"Even as the House begins debate on a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. combat troops to Iraq, leading anti-war groups are preparing a multi-million dollar TV ad campaign and grassroots lobbying blitz designed to pressure vulnerable incumbent lawmakers to end their support for the war."

becomes:

"Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options."

because:

It seemed a little snappier to us -- and more on point.

Harris throws up his hands as to his part in how the "slow bleed" phrase became a tool in the GOP's verbal arsenal:

That willingness to wrest words from context -- and to attribute the phrase to Democrats even though it was not theirs -- was demagogic on the part of Republican operatives. But it was never my plan to make their work so easy.

Well, it's okay this time, John. But it won't be so easy to explain away this catchphrase in his upcoming opus, "The Democrats next plan to follow a Wimpy McLosersons strategy, unless they succeed in making all the troops gay first." All about context, people, context!

Given the arrogance and distemper of the Bush Administration, it's kind of tough for even our best friends, like the Brits, to remain solid U.S. allies these days...but I've got to say that Max Boot raises an important point in his column today.

Our NATO allies simply aren't pulling their weight in Afghanistan. This is a "good war" against some really bad actors--the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If we can't get NATO to do more than some flaccid, Sarajevo-style peacekeeping, then you have to wonder about the future of the alliance...although I suppose that NATO is still good for its initial purpose, to repel an attack on the European democracies. But if the Europeans aren't going to join us in the fight they agreed to undertake against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan--if we are truly all alone--it damages righteous liberal arguments about multilateralism as a precondition for military action and bolsters the neoconservative assumption that we're the only country in the world with any military spine. That would be very bad news, indeed.

Update: I must say I'm disappointed by the inability of many commenters to see past their opinions of Max Boot and deal with the very disappointing failure of the Europeans to stand up in Afghanistan. Ezra Klein makes a similar point here about the perils of ideological myopia.

My disappointment deepens. It appears that several readers think my use of the word "righteous" to describe multilateralism was "snarky" or ironic. It wasn't. Regular readers of Swampland and my column know that I have repeatedly written that, if nothing else, Iraq has taught us that pre-emptive unilateralism is disastrous. But as a commited multilateralist, I remain disappointed in the European unwillingness to use force--even when part of a multilateral operation, as in Afghanistan...or Bosnia, for that matter. Remember Srebrenica? The Dutch--whose peacekeepers permitted a genocide--certainly do.

Remember all that hand-wringing about how Obama wasn't "black enough" to win black voters' support? Well, a couple of weeks later: notsomuch.

Cheney's trip around the world this week has produced some of the more memorable dispatches to press.release@whitehouse.gov in this administration. First, the "unreportable" actions of the leg out. Then the long search for a bunk ("After we nearly had a collision on the tarmac with a fuel tanker, our bus wandered around the base in search of someone who knew where the barracks were."), then, you know, the deadly bombing. In the history books, it will also be remembered for this, one of the lamest excuses for anonymity since Libby asked to be identified as a "former Hill staffer." From an "INTERVIEW OF A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, BY THE TRAVELING PRESS":

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Let me just make one editorial comment here. I've seen some press reporting says, "Cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them." That's not the way I work. I don't know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn't know what I'm doing, or isn't involved in it. But the idea that I'd go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.

Uh, yeah, "Cheney" works that way but, er, "I" don't...

That's in the second paragraph. Another, ahem, hint:

Q You've spoken also, though, about some of the things that Speaker Pelosi and Representative Murtha have said how that does play to the hands of --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I was asked by one of your colleagues.
[snip]
And my point was that if we follow what I believe Speaker Pelosi really wants to do in terms of withdraw, that that would validate the al Qaeda strategy. I was very careful in those words I selected. I didn't say "give aid and comfort to terrorists." I didn't say "unpatriotic." I said it would validate the al Qaeda strategy.

Let's see, who's said something like that about Pelosi lately... "validate the al Qaeda straegy"... Damn, it's on the tip of my blood-of-the-living-drenched tongue...

I thought these guys were the leak experts. This is as blatant as birdshot in the face.

UPDATE: In the wake of the Libby trial's examples of media accommodation, the willingness of the press corps to go along with this not-even-trying-level of deception is especially embarrassing. But I haven't seen any reporting on the interview yet. Maybe someone will call the OVP's bluff.

UPDATE 2: AP catches clue train, rides it all the way to Coy-ville:

The rules were simple. The official who briefed reporters on Vice President
Dick Cheney's plane could be identified only as a senior administration official. But there were plenty of clues who was talking as Cheney wrapped up a trip with surprise stops in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"The reason the president wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border," the high-ranking person who spoke on condition of anonymity said Tuesday.

The White House distributed a text of the senior administration official's comments on Air Force Two as Cheney flew from Afghanistan to Oman before beginning his flight back to Washington. The transcript did not spell out why the official on Cheney's plane would not be quoted by name.

What is it about highly-paid outside consultants (and less highly paid White House officials) who are unable to keep their confidential strategy memos, campaign playbooks and debate prep videos from being lost, stolen or otherwise leaked? Remember the imbroglio over the George W. Bush debate prep materials that were mysteriously sent to a Gore campaign aide? Then there was the Karl Rove Power Point presentation from the 2002 mid-terms that turned up in Lafayette Park. And not so long ago (but long enough ago that he was still at the Daily News), Ben Smith scored an exclusive when he got his hands on a 144-page "battle plan" put together by Rudy Giuliani's crack team of advisers.

I fear an epidemic is at hand. Candidates in need of some press attention will suddenly discover serious security breaches in their campaigns. It's only a matter of time before the confidential strategy memos for Tommy Thompson and Dennis Kucinich are leaked.

Of course, this is all good news for entrepreneurs who see campaigns as potentially lucrative places to work. I bet a qualified Document Security Specialist could command $15,000 a month. And what's $15,000 a month in a $500 million campaign?

Look, I like a good Cheney-drinks-the-blood-of-the-living joke as much as the next person, but it's also true that sometimes folks go over the line, as appears to have happened at the Huffington Post in reaction to the suicide bombing outside Cheney's camp in Afghanistan [they appear to have been taken down]:

"To (sic) bad they missed!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Better luck next time!"

"Cheney's spokeswoman said he was fine. F**k."

It's disgusting, right? Almost as bad: the gleefulness with which the right wing is touting this comment thread -- as though weirdly happy to have discovered this vein of hate, since they think it justifies their own. And as if the right wing had no nutjobs lurking in its far reaches. Or, you know, in the White House.

UPDATE: Just to be clear: No one has a monopoly on nutjobs, that's the point. LGF, FDL, here on Swampland -- sometimes comments get mean and violent, especially when no one has to take responsibility for them.

Continuing Mittpolooza today, I found his "leaked" playbook to be highly amusing, especially in its brazen sales-speak. I'm particularly enamored of the phrase "Primal Code for Brand Romney," which makes him sound a little like a Michael Crichton novel. I also love that it's a Power Point presentation. Next year's Oscar-winner, anyone?

The conventional wisdom around Washington seems to be that the leak was intention, far from accidentally revealing their strategy, they have proved that they have strategy. (This shores up last week's "leaked" poll "analysis," the gist of which was, "Our low numbers just mean we have a lot of room for improvement!" -- true enough, if eventually beside the point.) Of course, if the leak was accidental, and his positions have been "exposed," there's no need to worry -- they'll change soon.

Underwear aside, Ana, (and Romney did not answer that question when USA Today asked it recently) the question of how Romney's faith will affect people's willingness to vote for him is going to be one of the great guessing games in the Republican primary race. That same USA Today story had a poll in which 24% of those surveyed said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. By comparison, only 11% felt that way about a woman candidate and 5% about a black. That's the bad news for Romney. The good news is that descriptions of his top two opponents in the Republican primary got even greater resistance: 42% wouldn't vote for a 72-year-old candidate and 30% wouldn't vote for one who was married three times. Romney argues--and he's right I think--that these kinds of descriptions don't mean much in polls unless there are real people attached to them. He says, for instance, that most Republicans in 1980 probably would have told a pollster they wouldn't vote for a divorced actor.

I'm heading back to Swampland from Silicon Valley today. Getting here had me stuck in O'Hare for so long that I probably could have registered to vote in Illinois. Wishing for a break from the weather gods...

UPDATE: My plane is boarding, but you've gotta read this in the Boston Globe.