>by "Learning Richard" ><[email protected]> Dec 9, 2005 at 05:42
AM
>Fact Check: President Bush Said We Can't Win
>Washington, DC - The RNC got it wrong. Today, >they falsely claimed
>that President Bush has always predicted victory >in the War on Terror,
>and argued in a release that "President Bush >Never Said We Couldn't
>Win." In fact, last summer, on the first day of >his convention,
>President Bush told Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today >Show" that he
>didn't think "we can win it."
<snip>
Phewwwwwwwwww! this BullShit is a year old!
Bush is talking about terrorism in general. Not the Iraq war as his header
makes it appear.
Jeeez Leweeze!
This explains:
Over-Excitement Over Bush's Terror Comment
White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller gets a front-page story
out of a comment Bush made on the "Today" show in "Bush Cites Doubt
America Can Win War On Terror." The subheads read: "No Change In Policy
Seen--Comment Is a Departure From Earlier Optimism on a Defining Issue."
Bumiller opens: "President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday,
said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could
make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his
previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually
prevail. In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program 'Today,'
conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican
National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the
war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration
and the central thrust of his re-election campaign. 'I don't think you can
win it,' Mr. Bush replied. 'But I think you can create conditions so that
those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'
As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. 'I have a
clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror,' he said."
Bumiller tries valiantly to create controversy: "It was unclear if
Mr. Bush had meant to make the remark to Mr. Lauer, or if he misspoke. But
White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in
policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was
emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle. Taken at face value,
however, Mr. Bush's words would put him closer to the positions of the
United States' European allies, who have considered Mr. Bush's talk of
victory simplistic and unhelpful."
The Times' over-excitement over Bush's statement, which makes sense
in context, was too much even for the liberal Eric Umansky of Slate, who
wrote in his "Today's Papers" column: "Only the NYT thinks it's a big
enough deal to front; in fact the Times puts it above-the-fold: 'BUSH
CITES DOUBT AMERICANS CAN WIN WAR ON TERROR.' It's an interesting choice:
Since as the Times points out, while the comment contrasts with Bush's
previous rhetoric it doesn't auger a change in policy. For a smarter, and
frankly fairer take, see the Post, which puts the comment inside...and in
context: Rather than focus on the simple verbal flip-floppery, the paper
emphasizes that this was the latest in a string of recent comments by Bush
toning down his war rhetoric."
HO HUM
-hbuck
AM
>Fact Check: President Bush Said We Can't Win
>Washington, DC - The RNC got it wrong. Today, >they falsely claimed
>that President Bush has always predicted victory >in the War on Terror,
>and argued in a release that "President Bush >Never Said We Couldn't
>Win." In fact, last summer, on the first day of >his convention,
>President Bush told Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today >Show" that he
>didn't think "we can win it."
<snip>
Phewwwwwwwwww! this BullShit is a year old!
Bush is talking about terrorism in general. Not the Iraq war as his header
makes it appear.
Jeeez Leweeze!
This explains:
Over-Excitement Over Bush's Terror Comment
White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller gets a front-page story
out of a comment Bush made on the "Today" show in "Bush Cites Doubt
America Can Win War On Terror." The subheads read: "No Change In Policy
Seen--Comment Is a Departure From Earlier Optimism on a Defining Issue."
Bumiller opens: "President Bush, in an interview broadcast on Monday,
said he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could
make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his
previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually
prevail. In the interview with Matt Lauer of the NBC News program 'Today,'
conducted on Saturday but shown on the opening day of the Republican
National Convention, Mr. Bush was asked if the United States could win the
war against terrorism, which he has made the focus of his administration
and the central thrust of his re-election campaign. 'I don't think you can
win it,' Mr. Bush replied. 'But I think you can create conditions so that
those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'
As recently as July 14, Mr. Bush had drawn a far sunnier picture. 'I have a
clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror,' he said."
Bumiller tries valiantly to create controversy: "It was unclear if
Mr. Bush had meant to make the remark to Mr. Lauer, or if he misspoke. But
White House officials said the president was not signaling a change in
policy, and they sought to explain his statement by saying he was
emphasizing the long-term nature of the struggle. Taken at face value,
however, Mr. Bush's words would put him closer to the positions of the
United States' European allies, who have considered Mr. Bush's talk of
victory simplistic and unhelpful."
The Times' over-excitement over Bush's statement, which makes sense
in context, was too much even for the liberal Eric Umansky of Slate, who
wrote in his "Today's Papers" column: "Only the NYT thinks it's a big
enough deal to front; in fact the Times puts it above-the-fold: 'BUSH
CITES DOUBT AMERICANS CAN WIN WAR ON TERROR.' It's an interesting choice:
Since as the Times points out, while the comment contrasts with Bush's
previous rhetoric it doesn't auger a change in policy. For a smarter, and
frankly fairer take, see the Post, which puts the comment inside...and in
context: Rather than focus on the simple verbal flip-floppery, the paper
emphasizes that this was the latest in a string of recent comments by Bush
toning down his war rhetoric."
HO HUM
-hbuck
