Tone Deaf
Bush Tones Down Attack on Iraq War Critics
Oh, really?
I’m not really following every word out of the Prez's mouth, but this strikes me as yet another case of the media covering its ass by inventing a “shift.”
Hasn’t Bush been saying all along criticism of policies is patriotic if sincere, and the American people have a right and a duty to question and dissent, but politicians who had turned against the war for political reasons were being disingenuous and sending the wrong message?
The quotes I saw from him late last week are like this:
And this:
That, as I understand it, was his position. You can play footsie over what they meant when they voted to "authorize," but unless you were a Democrat who voted to authorize the war, I don't see how you could read him as calling you "unpatriotic" for questioning the war.
The reporting of that seemed to ride right over the distinction he was drawing between politicians and people, however, and it came out in the headlines as “Bush slams war critics.”
Now that the editors have calmed down enough to notice the other half of what he’s been saying all along, the headlines say, “Bush changes tune.”
Cheney’s another story. But Cheney’s not Bush. I don’t mean to imply Bush’s distinction is perfect or right, or that dissent even by politicians is sending wrong messages, but I really am seeing a lot of media stuck on stupid here.
I mean, look at the lede:
Those aren’t opposing qualities. You can defend something and welcome opposition as patriotic. Just because you’re being opposed patriotically doesn’t mean you have to stop defending.
Besides, he said last week there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy. “Listen, patriotic is apt to disagree with the president, it doesn’t bother me.” So where’s the new in this?
Then when the AP goes for a quote to back it up, they have to get a Cheney word — “reprehensible.” Couldn’t they even find a Bush word as strong as that? That’s kind of reaching for it.
Be careful how you read these things. It’s not unusual for the media to cover itself for missing half a story by presenting that half when it realizes the mistake and spinning it as a new wrinkle.
Oh, really?
BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.
"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."
I’m not really following every word out of the Prez's mouth, but this strikes me as yet another case of the media covering its ass by inventing a “shift.”
Hasn’t Bush been saying all along criticism of policies is patriotic if sincere, and the American people have a right and a duty to question and dissent, but politicians who had turned against the war for political reasons were being disingenuous and sending the wrong message?
The quotes I saw from him late last week are like this:
Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue. And they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that is irresponsible.
And this:
Listen, patriotic is apt to disagree with the president, it doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics.
That, as I understand it, was his position. You can play footsie over what they meant when they voted to "authorize," but unless you were a Democrat who voted to authorize the war, I don't see how you could read him as calling you "unpatriotic" for questioning the war.
The reporting of that seemed to ride right over the distinction he was drawing between politicians and people, however, and it came out in the headlines as “Bush slams war critics.”
Now that the editors have calmed down enough to notice the other half of what he’s been saying all along, the headlines say, “Bush changes tune.”
Cheney’s another story. But Cheney’s not Bush. I don’t mean to imply Bush’s distinction is perfect or right, or that dissent even by politicians is sending wrong messages, but I really am seeing a lot of media stuck on stupid here.
I mean, look at the lede:
After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.
Those aren’t opposing qualities. You can defend something and welcome opposition as patriotic. Just because you’re being opposed patriotically doesn’t mean you have to stop defending.
Besides, he said last week there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy. “Listen, patriotic is apt to disagree with the president, it doesn’t bother me.” So where’s the new in this?
Then when the AP goes for a quote to back it up, they have to get a Cheney word — “reprehensible.” Couldn’t they even find a Bush word as strong as that? That’s kind of reaching for it.
Be careful how you read these things. It’s not unusual for the media to cover itself for missing half a story by presenting that half when it realizes the mistake and spinning it as a new wrinkle.
