Oh, heavens to Betsy, let's all clutch our pearls together:
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino retorted that lawmakers are involved in a "sound bite war" against Bush, counter to Democrats' promises of bipartisanship."Those particular comments were poisonous," Perino said. "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."
Yeah, they're really offended. How dare she! How dare that Nancy Pelosi speak her mind? How dare she call it like she sees it? How dare she pick up a big ol' La-Z-Boy and hit them in the face with it? Shocking, I tell you, stunning. I can hardly hold my head up. I need the smelling salts.
There's really nothing more odious, coming from the present bunch of garden tools running this country, than faux-outrage over the latest strong statement by a Democrat. God knows, they could be excused if they simply weren't used to such on-point crit and take-no-prisoners stylings, because it's not like I'm used to getting up every morning happy as hell and proud of my country either, but somehow I don't think that's the problem here. I think it's that they're incredibly conscious of what nice solid shieds the words "troops" and "terror" and "war" used to make, how good it was to be able to hold such things in front of you and magically make everybody just back away.
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.
A.
"the present bunch of garden tools running this country"
Oh my, that's *good*.
.
Posted by: spork_incident | January 19, 2007 at 18:34
DAMN! Great writing!
Posted by: Mr. Natural | January 19, 2007 at 20:46
Nothing quite so offensive to an authoritarian as pointing out that they have soiled themselves. Everyone knows it, you're just not supposed to mention it.
Posted by: thebewilderness | January 20, 2007 at 00:01
There's really nothing more odious, coming from the present bunch of garden tools running this country,
Garden tools. I'm not sure I've heard a more perfect description of this bunch. Banal, rusty and generally covered in dirt and/or shit.
Posted by: flory | January 20, 2007 at 01:06
What is amply more offensive is the fact that if you ask anyone remotely associated with the Pentagon or equivalent foreign services, THEY will tell you outright that we are already at war with IRAN.
Deploying more troops to Iraq, in order to deploy them in Iran. Hmm.
So like when Bushco broke federal law and transfered funds (and troops) to Iraq, from Afghanistan -- without authorization.
Fomenting civil war in a country that was illegally invaded over lies is one thing.
Starting a missile-throwing war with a strong enemy?
She is concerned about POLITICAL CORRECTNESS when what is being discussed is treating the human race as the Neocon plaything, and she is covering for their immoral and illegal plan to light the ME on fire for fifty years!
The nuclear plume is going to poison everyone and everything down the entire Arabian sea to South India. It is an intended act of the most serious sort.
Posted by: Paul in LA | January 20, 2007 at 01:34
Has any prominent Democrat just said flat out that the President should stop hiding behind the troops? I imagine somebody like Edwards could up with a lot of great material about the President passing the buck and burden of answering the criticisms by hiding behind the troops. Every time Bush is in hot water he goes down to make a political speech in front of uniformed servicemen and women who can't by law question the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. It's the weakest damn thing I've ever seen. Everybody American wants the US troops respected, safe, and provided for. An overwhelming majority of people oppose escalating the Iraq War, a majority of people want us out of Iraq in one year. If the President can't take the heat of a little criticism he should resign, not hide behind the troops.
Posted by: joejoejoe | January 20, 2007 at 04:02
Tim Russert, heh. On his cable show, that probably has fewer than 50,000 viewers, he demonstrates that he actually does know what is going on and does excellent interviews. Which makes what he does for the network particularly offensive.
Posted by: ql in ny | January 20, 2007 at 06:38
A., you nailed it. Windex. That's what this war needs.
And silly string - hear about that one? Too lazy to look for a link, but apparently I'm told that the troops are using silly string to identify trip wires and mines. (This is hearsay...if someone has time to confirm, go for it.)
But definitely Windex. Greeks know what it's all about.
Posted by: WitchWay11 | January 20, 2007 at 08:10
What's particularly funny about this pearl-clutching, is that the admin has already said this is what they're doing (speaking of Russert):
**Mr. Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said in an interview on "Meet the Press" on NBC that the White House has sufficient money under its control to deploy the troops as planned, and he suggested that once the troops are in place, Congress would be reluctant to cut off funding.
"I think once they get in harm's way, Congress's tradition is to support those troops," Mr. Hadley said.**
Posted by: iamcoyote | January 20, 2007 at 09:21
Let's see, Bush ups the ante while he says that he is gathering opinions on Iraq. Then announces not his new plan for debate, but rather that he is sending troops (too late for Congress to do anything. Nyah! Nyah!).
Bush recess appoints folks who couldn't even pass the Republican majority congress.
How dare Pelosi not act in a bipartisan manner.
Posted by: MapleStreet | January 20, 2007 at 17:35