Does Nancy Pelosi think that General Petraeus has cooties?
Democrats ignore that which doesn't fit their pre-conceived model.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in War — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In order to get all the facts needed to make the difficult and fateful decision on whether or how to fund United States troops in Iraq, Nancy Pelosi turned to an expert: Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It makes sense, as Junior is said to be playing a major role in causing the deaths of our soldiers, and learning anything contrary to Junior's proclamations would be fiddle faddle on Nancy's part. Right?
The top military commander in Iraq will make a rare visit to Capitol Hill next week but House Democratic leaders - unlike their Senate counterparts - initially declined the Defense Department's offer of a Members-only closed-door briefing with Army Gen. David Petraeus, according to Congressional and administration sources.
A spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at first acknowledged Tuesday that the Pentagon's request to have Petraeus give a House briefing had been denied due to "scheduling conflicts" next week. Later on Tuesday, Pelosi's office contacted Roll Call stating that the Speaker was now working to set up a session.
The paper reports that the Pentagon has been trying to set up meetings between General Petraeus and both Nancy and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Missouri), but committee staffers told the Pentagon that they were "too busy" to talk to them. In the middle of a war with a crucial funding supplemental pending, they are too busy to talk to the General in charge of operations in the theater? These are the same people who once claimed that an isolated Bush Administration ignored the advice of the generals. It seems Nancy has preordained the conclusion and wants to hear only from those who would buttress her whimsy.
Read More…
Harry Reid will talk to General Petraeus on April 25.
According to Roll Call, the Democrats are as always playing political games:
Democratic aides said the Pentagon's request violated standard briefing protocols, as such sessions usually are conducted on a regular basis by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State. The aides said that sending Petraeus is an effort to blunt Democratic criticism of the war.
The members ought to make sure these Dem aides stop freelancing, inventing their own charges. We are at a critical juncture in the war, the effort could be sabotaged by politics, and they expect some strange protocol to be followed? Sending Petraeus is indeed an effort to blunt Democratic criticism of the war, I'd think, because that wild-eyed and dangerous criticism must be countered.
Oh, House Republican leader John Boehner speaks for House Republicans:
"This demonstrates a willful refusal to obtain the facts, understand the consequences of withdrawal, or accept the possibility that the new plan for victory just may be showing signs of forward progress," Boehner said in a statement to Roll Call. "Preventing Gen. Petraeus from briefing Members while delaying funds for the troops and advancing a bill that undermines their mission is downright irresponsible. If I were delaying funding for his soldiers, I wouldn't want to look the General in the eyes either, but this is a dereliction of duty."
The Democrats are playing a political game in a situation much larger than keeping a House majority or protecting the political viability of a frighteningly fatuous Speaker of the House.
Nancy and friends are oblivious to points of view which do not fit their defeatist model and are willing, with their allies in the mainstream press, to mold and shape intelligence to support their desired outcomes. General Petraeus will tell them that victory is possible if the troops are supported, and Nancy doesn't want to hear that. She'll send Steny Hoyer out to argue that the Dems "are too supported the troops," neener, etc.
Perhaps she thinks the general has cooties.
Nancy (and Ike) should meet with General Petraeus and listen to him or she should find another line of work. The war is not a playground game.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | More chemical weapons in Iraq, part II — Comments (44) »
Does Nancy Pelosi think that General Petraeus has cooties? 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...is a very disturbing reality. The "GWB drowns puppies" book tour has become a thriving cottage industry. Far too many opportunists are willing to compromise what's right and what's honest in order to make a quick buck by pandering to deranged BDS outpatients.
Meanwhile, the Dems continue their surrender-fest, undeterred by the facts on the ground or the consequences of their pathetic "plan".
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
Step One: Boycott Petraeus' briefing.
Step Two: Criticize Petraeus for "politicizing" the war by talking only to Republicans.
*eye roll*
to hell with the Iraqi's. Where was it that Pelosi is quoted as saying that this is an endless war? Like withdrawing from Iraq will help in a war against the Muslim militants. Dems cynicism is too profound across the House and Senate. Heard Murtha talk about how they will blame Bush for defunding the troops when they write BS bills like the one pending the veto.
Dems own defeat indeed. When will they stand for anything positive for the country?
Actually, the Dems are just complaining that Bush isn't talking to the RIGHT Generals... you know... the ones trying to sell books on how stupid Bush is and how poorly he %*($&% up Iraq????
/sarcasm mode on
How dare Bush ignore retired paper pushers political appointees with an axe to grind while insisting on listening to the war fighters...doesn't he know that Petraeus is, gasp, an infantryman and we all know what violent war mongers THEY are????
/sarcasm mode off