That didn't take long ...
Apr. 2nd, 2007 11:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
petardierA questions was raised in today's White House press briefing about Matthew Dowd, the recent administration defector seeking asylum in Reality. Yesterday, I predicted they'd try to smear him somehow.
Perino: Well, I think that he's had some personal hardship, and also he has a son who's volunteered to serve in our armed forces and he's going to be deploying to Iraq. And I can only imagine that that affects a parent's thinking ...
Reporter: He's raised "personal journey," which was used yesterday, as well, on television -- it seems to be implying it's really all about him, it has nothing to do with any legitimate disagreement with the White House.
Perino: No, I think he has a legitimate disagreement, but I also know that he has had some personal hardship.
Reporter: Is that related? Is that relevant?
Perino: I don't know. I don't know Matthew and --
Reporter: Then why do you bring it up?
Perino: Well, I think that -- he brought it up in the article, and I think that it's relevant. And I think that it's true that when you have a parent who is going to see his or her son or daughter heading off to war, in a war that is -- where we are fighting a very determined enemy, in which the Congress is not fully backing the troops, it would be a concern. And I'm just not going to judge him. I'm going to allow him to have his views and wish him well.
Nice effort! If I'm not mistaken, that's an blatant attempt to claim objectivity (where there is none), a false claim that Dowd isn't being judged, and a sneaky assertion that Dowd just isn't thinking straight because of personal circumstances. Not to mention the gratuitous side-swipe at Congress for not supporting the troops. Cato would be impressed.
Quote taken from Salon's War Room:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/04/02/matthew_dowd/index.html
Perino: Well, I think that he's had some personal hardship, and also he has a son who's volunteered to serve in our armed forces and he's going to be deploying to Iraq. And I can only imagine that that affects a parent's thinking ...
Reporter: He's raised "personal journey," which was used yesterday, as well, on television -- it seems to be implying it's really all about him, it has nothing to do with any legitimate disagreement with the White House.
Perino: No, I think he has a legitimate disagreement, but I also know that he has had some personal hardship.
Reporter: Is that related? Is that relevant?
Perino: I don't know. I don't know Matthew and --
Reporter: Then why do you bring it up?
Perino: Well, I think that -- he brought it up in the article, and I think that it's relevant. And I think that it's true that when you have a parent who is going to see his or her son or daughter heading off to war, in a war that is -- where we are fighting a very determined enemy, in which the Congress is not fully backing the troops, it would be a concern. And I'm just not going to judge him. I'm going to allow him to have his views and wish him well.
Nice effort! If I'm not mistaken, that's an blatant attempt to claim objectivity (where there is none), a false claim that Dowd isn't being judged, and a sneaky assertion that Dowd just isn't thinking straight because of personal circumstances. Not to mention the gratuitous side-swipe at Congress for not supporting the troops. Cato would be impressed.
Quote taken from Salon's War Room:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/04/02/matthew_dowd/index.html
