This wasn’t Psaki spanking an outmatched Peter Doocy. This was Jen Psaki going against one of the most elite reporters in the world, one that had legitimate points about very legitimate criticism. The problem for Psaki is that she cannot stand up at the podium as a neutral person and say, “You make a good point. We have a lot of regret over that,” unless they want to see it replayed on Fox News every 30 seconds for the next five years.

The main event was the showdown with the New York Times’s Michael Schear. But it all started when Zolan Kanno-Youngs asked Psaki for the administration’s response to Rep. Susan Wild’s (D-PA) criticism of the withdrawal.

Wild had posted a tweet that said:

“I am devastated at the loss of U.S. servicemembers and Afghan civilians in today’s horrific attack, and I’m thinking of their families. Our country feels their grief, and we will never forget their loved ones’ sacrifices.

“Although it is clear to me that we could not continue to put American servicemembers in danger for an unwinnable war, I also believe that the evacuation process appears to have been egregiously mishandled.”

“In order to move forward, we need answers and accountability regarding the cascading failures that led us to this moment. Our troops deserve nothing less than a complete and unvarnished truth.”

I am devastated at the loss of U.S. servicemembers and Afghan civilians in today’s horrific attack, and I’m thinking of their families. Our country feels their grief, and we will never forget their loved ones' sacrifices. 1/3

— Rep. Susan Wild (@RepSusanWild) August 26, 2021

Psaki said she didn’t have a direct response to a member of Congress, and then sensitively addressed the concerns:

But what I will say is that it is easy to throw stones or be a critic from the outside. It is harder to be in the arena and make difficult decisions and the decisions that a commander-in-chief has to made include among difficult options. Right? These were the options. You send tens of thousands of more troops in Afghanistan to potentially lose their lives. That’s an option. Some support that.

That’s their prerogative. You pull out and you don’t put anyone at risk. You don’t put troops at risk and you don’t evacuate more than 105,000 people, that’s another option. The option that he has chosen, in coordination and based on the recommendations with his military commanders and advisers on the ground, is to implement an evacuation that has saved the lives potentially of more than 105,000 people, certainly at risk of the men and women who are serving in the military as we saw the events of yesterday. That’s the choice he’s made.

And then Schear interjected:

“But, Jen, apologies for my colleagues, but, like, you guys have said repeatedly this idea that there were only two choices. What evidence do you have that there weren’t other choices that could have been made?”

“What’s the other choice anyone is offering,” Psaki asked Shear.

United States could have told in May the now-previous Afghan government, led by Ashraf Ghani, that the United States was “going to start a mass evacuation of all” U.S. personnel and put out an advisory for Afghan allies to begin evacuating.

“It would have been a show of no confidence in the Ghani government. There might’ve been other repercussions. I’m not suggesting that’s the right way to have gone, I don’t know, but it is another option and I’m sure there’s ten other options that I haven’t thought of. So why do you present it as these being the only two options?”

“There are of course other options, but there are consequences to every option. That is my point.”

Now that’s a professional dodge because she had been characterizing it as two options, stay or go, when there were options as to how to stay or go.

It went back and forth and Schear, being the “anti-Doocy,” had some excellent points and made Jen’s job as tough as it actually is because – again – she can’t just stand there and say “You’re making good points, that will…” No, she has to defend the White House in every sentence. And she did it well:

“I think it’s easy to play backseat, let’s look at what could have happened, three months, four months, ago,” said Psaki. “

“I think we’ve been clear on a couple of things, I will say. No one anticipated, I think, including on the outside, that the Afghan government would have fallen at the pace they fell and the president and members of our national security team has spoken to that as well. We didn’t anticipate the Afghan national security forces would have folded as they did. We didn’t anticipate that. And as a result of that all happening, we saw a chaotic situation just two weeks ago.”

That’s sort of true. But we’ve read reports that the CIA reportedly warned that there could be a hasty collapse of both the Afghan government and military. But as Biden has said, there is no good time to pull forces out of anywhere because whatever forces are left are going to move right in.

“My point in response to the question is that there are consequences to any of these difficult choices and decisions. That is what faces you as commander-in-chief and that was the larger point I was trying to make.”

And that is where she earned her money. She got the last word, she wrapped it up without insulting or even getting personal with Schear, she defended her White House, and left it with a positive note. She is better than us.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LeftScoop.news. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.