If you back through news archives, you'll discover that every time Bush heads into battle with Democrats - whether it's a legislative battle or an election - the Busheviks plant stories in the Corporate Media claiming "victory is at hand."

It's a simple and effective propaganda technique, a form of "psychogical warfare" designed to get Democrats to abandon the fight before it ever begins. I'm sure it's in Sun Tzu's "Art of War" somewhere - trick the enemy into defeating himself before the fight begins.

And Democrats in Congress fall for it nearly every time, while the Busheviks laugh their asses off watching them do it.

Over at TPM, Greg Sargent almost grasps this simple fact when he references the Bushevik lies that preceeded the 2006 election:

As you probably remember, one of the more unsightly aspects of the press' performance during the 2006 midterm elections was its constant assertion, no matter what the polls said, that the GOP was "confident" and "gleeful" and "on the offensive" against the Dems. A bunch of us stamped our feet for weeks about this, and the big news orgs finally started telling the story right, helping lead to the rout of the Republicans.

Now this is starting to happen again. And this time, the new media meme has it that the White House is "confident" that it's going to "win" the coming showdown with the Dem Congress on Iraq.

Sargent then links to today's NY Times propaganda piece:

White House Is Gaining Confidence It Can Win Fight in Congress Over Iraq Policy

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — The White House is growing more confident that it can beat back efforts by Congressional Democrats to shift course in Iraq, a significant turnabout from two months ago, when a string of Republican defections had administration officials worried that President Bush’s troop buildup was in serious danger on Capitol Hill.

Sargent points out that this is bullshit journalism with exactly zero sources.

Guess how many administration officials are quoted saying that the White House is "confident" that it can "win" the Iraq fight? Exactly none. One former official says he detects a "tonal shift" but says that it could be "ephemeral." A second official says -- anonymously -- that there's a "sense the dynamic has changed," but concedes the fight is up in the air. Only one former official says anything close to this, noting that people think the surge will continue into the spring -- hardly a sign of sweeping confidence in long-term victory.

Sargent also links to a similar article in the Pentagon Post:

saying that the White House believes that the Dem Congress will be reluctant to confront the White House and demand a drawdown of troops after General Petraeus testifies about progress in Iraq. The basis for this claim? A single anonymous source. Incredibly, no Dem was allowed to rebut this.

Sargent is a media critic so he focuses on the shitty journalism. But despite reading years of "shitty journalism," Sargent hasn't figured out that this stuff doesn't materialize out of thin air.

It has a name: propaganda. And it's how we got into Iraq, in case Sargent was living in a cave in 2002-2003 and during the Scooter Libby trial.

As we all know from the Libby trial, there are people in the White House who manufacture this shit and call their cronies in the Corporate Media and convince them to publish/broadcast it. They used to work for Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. Now they work for Ed Gillespie and David Addington. The Busheviks may change, but Bushevism never changes.

In rare cases, the "journalists" are unwitting dupes. (Was Judith Miller an unwitting dupe? Yes by her account - but who believes her?) Most of the time they know exactly what's going on because they are "loyal Bushies." Obviously this includes everyone at FOX, the Washington Times, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but there are lots of "loyal Bushies" throughout the rest of the Corporate Media, including such "liberal" bastions as the NY Times and the Pentagon Post.

The Bushevik technique is to plant the story in one semi-credible Corporate Media outlet and then get the rightwing media (and the White House) to echo the story until it becomes "conventional wisdom." Sargent correctly describes the process as a "hall-of-mirrors":

But really, this notion of "momentum" is all too often a Beltway-concocted illusion, the result of a hall-of-mirrors effect where one pundit repeats it after hearing it from another pundit, who heard it from another pundit, and so on.

Of course Bushevik propaganda only works if Democrats believe it. So it's essential that bloggers like Greg Sargent recognize the telltale signs - like zero sources - and draw the simple conclusion that it's not accidental bullshit but deliberate lies. And then they need to blow the whistle on the reporter whose name is on the story and demand an explanation from the reporter, their editors, and the ombudsman.

And naturally media critics shouldn't lend credence to the propaganda by bending over backwards to find "facts" where none exist, as Sargent does:

Maybe the White House is confident about this fight, but you wouldn't know it from the quotes in this piece... Look, again, maybe the White House is confident that it will win this fight...

It's time for all media critics to adopt a simple rule: if there are no facts and no credible sources, it's just propaganda and lies, and whoever is responsible should be held fully accountable.

Wake up, Greg!