« I Got Them Old Deployment Blues Again, Mama
Power vs Finesse – The Real Test of Congressional Leadership »
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.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “Clash Coming Up?”
[...] The Moderate Voice brings blog reactions to the Pelosi/Bush brawl. In short, the Democrats are claiming Bush is shipping troops over as quickly as possible to undercut the Democrats “purse string” strategy. The flip side would be the Dems pre-empting troops going over by cutting funding and leaving the troops already there without the additional support they need and definitely leading to withdrawal, but you won’t get that in the responses, which are largely concerned with a lack of knowledge on how wars are conducted. [...]
I think the Democratic strategy is to get their GOP cohorts in Congress to join their protest against the surge and against Bush. The less partisan they look, the less cowardly they seem. But after the McGovern years, don’t expect Democrats to leave troops in the field without funds. It would be political suicide. They are smart enough to know that America may not support the surge, may not support this war, but they would excoriate anyone who dared cut off a sitting army.
The threat to Bush is not cutting of funds to the troops, the real threat is cutting off funds to Maliki. By cutting the funds to Maliki, or putting constraints on funding like showing some Iraqi progress on curbing the militias, Congress will not be seen as abandoning the troops but still getting the point across that the administration still has to deal with Congress on Iraq.
[...] Clash Coming Up? [...]
Of course that’s why he’s sending them over when he’s sending them over. He’s completely ignoring anyone, no matter what their qualifications, whose advice conflicts with whatever he’s already made up his mind to do so he has to do an end run around the majority of the population of the country.
Pelosi is right on this one. Bush continues to put American forces in harm’s way and places politics above everything else.
Well, most thought that Hillary’s trip to Afghanistan was to say that her pals work, Sarah Chayes(maybe a Plame) was okay. She denounced Karzai after getting very close to him and his family. USAID cut off her money and she threw it all away right there. Karzai wants to leave now, probably a smart thing to say. The NATO insurgency began right after Chayes tossed it all away in S. Afghanistan, where she lived, where the insugrency started, where her not liked NATO pals were all quiet.
Next Hilly went it Iraq and said, like Chayes, she dosen’t like Malaki and, in fact, MSM has agreed there never was a working relationship. Malaki now wants to leave too, but does need some guns to keep the enemy at bay as we haul ass, but, hey, maybe he can get some troops from Afghanistan where Hilly said it’s okay. I got that the other guy wasn’t liked by Hilly, Plame, Chayes, and their group and so we chose Malaki. I guess if you were for him there, you had to macarana, but that’s not important anymore is it? He had a real close relationship to CIA, so maybe it was a money problem.
Pelosi is following up Hilly and she is a write off. Pelsoi did okay with the intelligence committee and there is no oversight and they did nothing wrong planning the Afghanistan war. The congressional gold medal for Spain may have been a mistake, but, hey, if they are that easy, just sell ‘em off to Joe, his dad, and Plame.
MvdG: 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.
Sorry, but I gotta disagree with this bit of received wisdom. What I suspect people want, is for us to get the hell out of Iraq, regardless of how that’s accomplished.
And while a compromise solution might be nice, it has yet to be shown that anything of the sort is possible with this president.
Brute partisan politcs seems to be the only game this administration plays, and such can only be succesfully encountered in kind.
If a Democratic congress manages to compel the president to pull out of Iraq, I suspect the public will not quibble about the tactics used, regardless of how partisan.
Our modern day politicians have lost the ability to work together, compromise and find commond ground behind the scenes. Everything that happens in DC now is a traumatic event that requires massive amounts of political manuevering to get the public and press on your side as quickly as possible.
Bush is doing nothing wrong. What he is doing is showing the democrats MODERATE stripes are GONE. HE is forcing them to the LEFT and forcing them to Polarize their party once again because:
THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF COMPROMISING.
This is the type of thing that should have been worked out in back rooms long before Bush announced it. And years ago it would have. But Bush is Calling Nancy Pelosi’s hand and she now must respond. Her only recourse is to huff and puff and blow down Bush’s house of cards and in the process………POLARIZE once again the Democratic party and swing them left.
How shrewd. Im surprised you democrats are not seeing thru this manuevering. Perhaps its because you love being polarized while preaching moderation. Send them emails to your congressman and senator. I know I do.
It seems inconceivable to me that the Dems really want to give Iraq to either Iran or terrorists. I hope they’re just posturing for their base.
Nelson
Asymmetric
“But I think that it would be, well, stupid for the Democrats – and their followers – to play the partisan card too aggressively right now.”
What’s partisanship got to do with it? Look at the polls: The surge isn’t supported by the american public. Period. Regardless of party affiliation, a large group of voters is against it. Pelosi and other Dems are merely fulfulling a role as advocates for this group by questioning Bush’s strategy.
No offence Michael, but I find it ironic that someone who’s not even American is telling American’s what we think and long for. What we long for is to not be lied to, not be manipulated, and not treated like we’re idiots. Bush has done all three and while the Democrats certainly aren’t immune to doing the same they haven’t been screwing the country over for the last 12 years…. the other side has. I grew up in a republican household and you know what? After 6 years of Bush there isn’t a single republican left in my family.
People can preach all they want about wanting cooperation but as long as the other guys are trying to screw you over all you end up with is appeasement.
“No offence Michael, but I find it ironic that someone who’s not even American is telling American’s what we think and long for.”
No offence, Dustin, but you should be grateful that foreigners step in and offer their point of views. But we don’t tell anybody who he/she should vote for. We just present some arguements on the pros and cons. Imho this is a valuable addition to the discussion, since the view from the outside often exposes problems that can’t easily be recognized from within. The ‘wood for the trees’ situation, you know…
Not that I want to defend Michael’s sometimes idiotic stances, especially on foreign policy, I just think that this specific accusation is unfair.
Personally, I initially hesitated before I started to participate in the blogosphere’s discussions, because of concerns about the ethical justification for doing so. My final conclusion on this question is: In this global era, where US actions affect the whole world, it is only fair for people from the rest of the world to bring their views to the attention of Americans. A logical arguement isn’t less valuable just because it comes from a Dutch, German, or any other ‘world citizen’.
But, pls don’t misunderstand me: Of course, going beyond discussion and instead directly supporting a candidate, financially or logistically, is a totally different ballgame. This would be an inappropriate intrusion into the US democratic process. That’s where I see the line that shouldn’t be crossed for ‘outsiders’.
“I find it ironic that someone who’s not even American is telling American’s what we think and long for.”
Hehe, sry, can’t resist: It’s hard work, but someone has to do it!
Believe it or not based upon my previous comment but I truly do value Michael views on this any every previous post they’ve made, but in this instance the views expressed here are so far removed from both my own and nearly everyone else’s in my daily life that I just wanted to point out that in many instances it’s no the goal of moderation that weighs heaviest. Results matter just as much and how ‘nicely’ we got them, and if the only way to achieve anything is to block out one side of the debate we’ll do it… When it’s our own sons and daughters that are risking death over in Iraq for what, right,left, or center, you have to admit were false pretenses and that for many of us continue to be less than convincing reasons I just don’t see enough people getting upset at Pelosi and the Democrats for it to be a problem.
Most of the people who will/would fight against the Dems on this would have done so anyway, so what does it matter if they get one more reason to fight?
Why win the battle just to lose the war? The Dems could defund the war and then remain out of power for the next 30 years or so, because the general public no longer trusts them to deal with national security. They need to build up the party’s base and try to get as much of a bipartisan consensus as possible for controversial issues like the war. That would be a lot smarter than to act like Don Quixote and go off swinging at windmills.
We already won the war; it’s the open-ended occupation we’re losing. We overthrew a secular tyrant, set up a largely puppet gov’t, and now have a religious civil war to deal with. Iraq is not Nam, it’s not our fight anymore. Selfish as it may be that, not continued support, is what the American people are saying. And by the way: Which polls are you seeing that would make you think the democrats are the ones who can’t be trusted with national security? I really am curious.