http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/09/05/BL2007090500503.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletterPresident Bush got the headlines he wanted with his Labor Day drop-by in Iraq.
New York Times: "Bush, In Iraq, Says Troop Reduction is Possible."
Los Angeles Times: "Bush Hints at Troop Reduction."
Washington Times: "In Anbar, Bush Optimistic for Pullout."
But when you stick a fork into what he actually said, the souffle' collapses. A troop reduction is no more likely today than it was yesterday. The president himself gave away the game in his interview with Katie.
COURIC: But just hearing those two words, "troop reduction" -- Do you think it will win some people over who are uncomfortable with this war?
BUSH: That was just speculating. It's not going to win anybody over until it becomes a reality.
Just speculating--and yet that became the media's lead.
Which leads me to another question: How come Bush gets to ask everyone to wait for the Petraeus report, but he can go on about the surge's progress and how it would be a mistake to pull out? The wait-and-see admonition doesn't apply to him?
It was obviously a PR coup for the president to be photographed with the troops in Anbar, a place where the military has clearly achieved results, and to dominate a slow news day. But I happened to be in a hotel breakfast place when news of Bush's surprise trip broke on a local newscast. No one looked up or started talking about it. I wonder whether many Americans have tuned Bush out on Iraq.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
