Clash Coming Up?

Nancy Pelosi has publicly warned U.S. President George W. Bush:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) contended Friday that
President Bush is rushing new troops to Iraq and betting that Congress won’t cut off funds once they’re in battle. The White House called her assertion “poisonous.”

In an exchange of harsh rhetoric that underscored the intensity of the political fight, Pelosi, D-Calif., said the war should not be “an obligation of the American people in perpetuity.”

“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,” Pelosi said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

When asked whether she thought the president manipulated the deployments to avoid congressional action, Pelosi said she hoped he did not but thought “he could have told us about it sooner. … We found out about it as the troops were going in.”

The White House responded to Pelosi’s allegations:

“Those particular comments were poisonous. I think questioning the president’s motivations and suggesting that he, for some political reason, is rushing troops into harm’s way, is not appropriate, it is not correct, and it is unfortunate because we do have troops in harm’s way.”

More at
Think Progress
The Carpetbagger Report who responds to the White House:

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.

First Draft responds aggressively as well:

It wasn’t so long ago, after all, that that was a foolproof plan for victory in every possible sphere: public opinion, election, legislating. Just say you’ll vote for me and I won’t say you hate America. That used to be their machine gun, the thing they reached for no matter what because it’ll get rid of all your problems from hemorrhoids to mice. Like Windex in that “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” movie.

And what they haven’t adjusted to yet is that that doesn’t work anymore. That the story’s old, and tired, and that people not named Tim Russert haven’t been buying it for a good long while now. That it’s one thing to call your opponent a puss, but for it to make an impact two things have to be true: you are demonstrably not, and your opponent will just lie back and take it like one. It wasn’t so long ago that you could count on it, but not anymore.

So it looks like it’s going to take a little time for reality to catch up. And it would be amusing, watching them flail around in utter disarray, if it wasn’t just one more indication that more people have to die so they can feel good about themselves.

Lambert at Corrente who writes: as usual, Republicans can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

Now, I understand the reactions above. They feel passionated, they are of the opinion that the White House / Republicans insulted them throughout the years by labeling them ‘cowards’, ‘anti-American’, etc. But I think that it would be, well, stupid for the Democrats – and their followers – to play the partisan card too aggressively right now. Americans are not longing for more conflict, more hatred, more propaganda, they are longing for unity, they are longing for shared, common goals, they are longing for compromise.

Cutting off funding isn’t wise; it’s held against the Democrats far too easily. It has a (tremendous) potential to backfire. It can only be done if it has the support of quite some Republicans. And that can only be achieved if the general tone of the debate about Iraq, is somewhat reasonable and moderate.