…the administration ACTUALLY stated that opposition to their ideas and handling of the war was unamerican is not true.

Did they ever say the word “unamerican?” I doubt it. But if their base can then pick that message up and start saying that, the message meisters in the White House know what they’re doing. They wanted to silence critics of the war from the start. That’s why the denied access to reporters who wrote articles that were critical of their policies.

Okay…now THIS is the end. ;-)

So its the end now? Thats it huh, time to review our lives and prepare for oblivion. Say goodbye to your relatives, eat some ice cream, smell some flowers. The final moments of the universe are ticking away….

Ok, why are we still here? I thought we were at the end.

There wasn’t a whole lot of dissent running up to iraq as much as there is now anyway, especially among democrats, because they thought the war would be a repeat of 1991 in terms of time and casualties. Only when things began to get sticky did Kerry & freinds start chanting all that “Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” crap.

Come on people, the Administration wasn’t talking about how dissent was good last year this time. In fact, they said that questioning the war was hurting the troops morale and our ability to win the war. What do you think that’s code for? Keep protesting?

Again, the “abrupt” word was unfortunate, but it’s still a shift and we all know it.

“People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq. … I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.’ I totally reject that thought.”

side by side with:

“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.”

And you told him to pick which one was “fiercely attacking” and which one was “conciliatory,” or whatever, I can imagine he’d be puzzled by the choice.

I’m not cherry-picking quotes. Those are the ones the stories are built on. One from last week, one from Sunday/Monday. I’m not going to the press conference transcripts to see the totality of what was said. The quotes aren’t incidental to the story — they are the story. The AP is reporting on the “tone” of what the president is saying. And those are the quotes they chose to prove it.

Now, I don’t watch TV, so maybe Bush was rolling his eyes or had his tongue in his cheek when he spoke last week. But AP didn’t tell me that.

Part of genuine dialogue and debate is genuinely listening to what someone is saying, whether he’s “your” man or not. AP isn’t being very helpful lately.

But, whatever. If AP says it’s an “abrupt� tone-down. I must read and obey. I must have been hallucinating last week. Me and PBS. Wouldn’t be the first time.

Fair enough. The “abrupt” comment was lost on me.

Still, we can agree that this is fairly recent development.

You know me, since I’ve been talking about this sooner rather than later…

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iraq_11-18.html

But, whatever. If AP says it’s an “abrupt” tone-down. I must read and obey. I must have been hallucinating last week. Me and PBS. Wouldn’t be the first time.

What a waste of time.

I’m not really following every word, but this strikes me as yet another case of the media inventing “shifts.� 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.

Listen, this is a VERY recent development Cal.

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.�

“All along?” Please document and I’ll concede this pont. It’s hard to believe given the 2004 campaign strategy, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Of course I haven’t heard it, and I haven’t seen it in any outlets I’ve followed. And what else is their besides the traditional media and the “un”traditional media.

Again, please provide proof.

I’m glad we’re talking about it, too, but 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.

Fair enough, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a “recent development.”

Agreed?

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. The reporting of that seemed to ride right over the distinction he was drawing between politicians and people, and it came out “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, 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.

I’m glad we’re talking about it, too, but 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.