Special Report falsely suggested Reid "sang a different tune" on *

[NVMojo]

Media Matters Summary: Fox News' Brit Hume selectively quoted from two statements by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid apparently to suggest that, in criticizing President Bush, Reid had recently changed his position on the United States' proper role in resolving international crises. An onscreen graphic during the report read: "Democrat Sang a Different Tune?"

During the "political grapevine" segment on the April 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host and Washington managing editor Brit Hume selectively quoted from two statements by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) apparently to suggest that, in criticizing President Bush, Reid had recently changed his position on the United States' proper role in resolving international crises. An onscreen graphic during the report read: "Democrat Sang a Different Tune?"

As Hume noted, on April 18, Reid criticized Bush for not "taking the lead" in the international effort to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Hume purported to identify an inconsistency between that statement and Reid's comment -- made on the January 5, 2003, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press -- that Reid would support a pre-emptive strike against North Korea only if President Bush first sought international support.

more...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604210011

[LoZoccolo]

1. Even if that was true, which it isn't...

...did they mention Bush*'s change of policy from the 2000 presidential debates to the Iraq war?

Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

And the messed-up thing is that this old quote is oddly articulate, as people have pointed out before regarding his affect in the past compared to now.