Pelosi ‘poisonous’? Please

January 19, 2007

I saw a big AP headline a few minutes ago that read, “Pelosi comments draw White House ire,” and got a little nervous. Sometimes, if a Dem slips even a little, and a remark comes out poorly, the White House will pounce and milk it for all it’s worth (and then some). I cringed just a bit, wondering what Pelosi might have inadvertently said to draw the Bush gang’s indignation.

Pelosi said, “The President knows that because the troops are in harm’s way that we won’t cut off the resources, that’s why he’s moving so quickly to put them in harm’s way.” She added that Iraq should not be “an obligation of the American people in perpetuity.”

That’s it. That’s what drew the White House’s ire. Maybe after being called a terrorist-loving traitor a few too many times my sensitivities are skewed, but Pelosi’s comments struck me as rather tame, especially given some of the things Bush has said about Pelosi and congressional Dems.

Nevertheless, the White House is outraged. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters today that the Speaker’s comments were “poisonous.”

“Speaker Pelosi was arguing, in essence, that the President is putting young men and women in harm’s way for tactical political reasons, and she’s questioning his motivations, rather than questioning his policies. The one thing you can say about President Bush is that he’s not moving forward with this new plan because he thinks it is popular; he is doing it because he thinks it is right. He is sending troops to Iraq quickly because he wants to win.”

Really? Two weeks ago, several White House aides acknowledged that “their timetable for completing an Iraq review had been based in part on a judgment that for Mr. Bush to have voiced doubts about his strategy before the midterm elections in November would have been politically catastrophic.” And two years ago, the White House delayed an offensive in Falluja until after the 2004 elections were over, even if it meant making the mission more dangerous. Indeed, throughout the entire ordeal, every major decision in Iraq seems to have been based largely, if not exclusively, on political motivations, up to and including filling key government posts in Iraq based on whether applicants wanted to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

And we’re not supposed to question the president’s “motivations”? To do so is “poisonous”?

Please.

The Dems should respond with something like:

“Yes, the White House that called Democrats and other Americans traitors and appeasers, the same White House that falsely claimed Democrats did not want to wiretap terrorists, the same White House that repeatedly lied to the public in order to place our troops in harms way without any proper planning, the same White House that has continued to lie to theAmerican public throughout these last 4 years, now that is poisonous. The White House has no credibility. The American public recognized this in November and recognizes it even more today.

  • Oh no, she stated the obvious.

    It’s because the escalation is unpopular that he is hurrying to put troops in harm’s way so no one will stop him.

  • “Speaker Pelosi was arguing, in essence, that the President is putting young men and women in harm’s way for tactical political reasons, and she’s questioning his motivations, rather than questioning his policies.”

    That response shows they have lost control of the message. By denying Pelosi’s statement, they reinforce it. Just look at what a little political power can bring. Now the Democrats have the ability to frame issues.

  • Here’s a question. Why is it news when the President makes some self-serving announcement that doesn’t include anything new. But it’s not news when the President publicly lies? I would think would be a scoop.

  • Heh. I thought it as the liberals who were “shrill.”

    Speaker Pelosi was arguing, in essence, that the President is putting young men and women in harm’s way for tactical political reasons…

    You know things are desperate when the WH has to acknowledge what they’re doing (in order to deny it) shrieking “Terrorist Lover!” and scurrying back to their lair.

    Let’s see, the Barbara Boxer as misogynistic homopobe went…no where. I don’t think they’ll get much milage out of sputtering because someone criticized the MonkeyMan. I guess the recent elections weren’t enough of a hint that we WANT legislators to criticize the president.

  • A little lesson in “Rhetorical Rurality” is in order here….

    ***Well, when you have a problem with rats raiding the grain bin, you need to break out the poison. Now if you apply the idea that Bush is a rat, and that the troops are the contents of the grain bin, then of course Pelosi is “poison.” And rightfully so.***

    *My forte’ was Rhetoric—and I’ll gladly make the attempt to out-rhetoric this imbecilic political hack of a chimp-in-chief any day of the week….

  • Now, what was it Cheney said? I would love to hear Pelosi repeat it from the Speakers Well in the house;>

  • “Speaker Pelosi was arguing, in essence, that the President is putting young men and women in harm’s way for tactical political reasons..”

    We’ve been told already that all decisions made in the Bush White House are indeed made for tactical political reasons. This was made known during the first term. Why should this decision be any different? The tactical political advantage here is allegedly to shore up the Maliki government.

  • Only a Republican would call a taste of his own medicine “poison.”

    Keep it up Nancy, you’ve got their attention.

  • #9 Edo,
    That was my thought exactly. Pelosi was simply holding up a mirror for them to look into.

  • The preznit has poisoned our country.

    Thanks for introducing that word, Dana Perino. I wouldn’t have thought of using it to describe bush until I heard you say it.

    Holding up a mirror, indeed.

  • Of course this drew White House ire… they got called on the only strategy they have for Iraq – make the Democrats look bad.

  • Pelosi spoke truth. Of course she was attacked, she told the truth! This administration is anti-truth, so obviously they would attack Speaker Pelosi for speaking truth. It’s a no brainer, kind of like President Bush.

    Any challenge to Bush’s despotic and authoritarian rule will be instantly pounced upon. I’m sure Karl “Turdblossom” Rove is in hyper-spin mode now, grabbing at every turn for some turd to throw at his perceived enemies. I can imagine him, like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, screens floating in mid-air, hands whipping around, adjusting the positions of his enemies files, bringing up and collating the latest reports of who’s attacking the administration now, and then activating the Insult Comic Tony Snow-bot to to drive the perps into the ground. However it really is, I imagine it’s even wierder than any fantasy I could dream up. I suspect the Rovinator is in his bunker, behind ten foot thick stainless steel walls, planning the destruction of his enemies, and all their supporters. When he saw Pelosi’s words, he had to laugh in glee, cause this was a premium opportunity to strike back, and he did.

  • Dana Perino seems like an intelligent, affable, and attractive young lady, but lying for a living is not good for her career, her reputation, or her health.

    • Comments are closed.