Posted by Curt on 26 May, 2006 at 11:18 am. 2 comments already!

So we wake up this morning to this headline:

Bush, Blair Concede Missteps on Iraq

and

Bush and Blair Concede Errors, but Defend War

And you think uh oh! Even more when you read this:

While Bush increasingly has begun to acknowledge missteps in handling the war, his comments last night — together with Blair’s — represent his most explicit acknowledgment that the administration underestimated the difficulty of the central project of his presidency.

and

President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, two leaders badly weakened by the continuing violence in Iraq, acknowledged major misjudgments in the execution of the Iraq war on Thursday night even while insisting that the election of a constitutional government in Baghdad justified their decision to go to war three years ago.

Speaking in subdued, almost chastened, tones at a joint news conference in the East Room.

But then you watch the actual conference and read the transcript and get something completely different, surprise surprise. Here is the explicit acknowledgement of mistakes….his tough talk:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here — saying “bring it on,” kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner — you know, “wanted dead or alive,” that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted, and so I learned from that.

He then said Abu Gharib was a mistake, another big surprise. But where is the HUGE mistake that the headlines and the article appear to suggest was forthcoming? His admitting that saying “bring it on” was misinterpreted in other parts of the world is a HUGE mistake?

Sigh

And then some on the right jump on:

Pretty hard to picture Churchill and FDR apologizing for talking too tough in their radio broadcasts, being too mean to the Nazis, and purging the regime afterwards.

or

Well, you can certainly expect this incredibly stupid apology to breathe new life into the “poorly planned occupation” and “Osama bin forgotten” slogans that the anti-war left has become so fond of. Moonbats are nothing if not predictable… sigh.

Which is just another completely skewed view of his comments. Bush said he regretted the words he chose because they play differently in different parts of the world. That’s it.

To infer that he wants to be more sensitive to terrorists is a complete falsehood and misleading. All he admitted was that the message he wanted to convey could have been packaged a bit differently.

Bush never pretends to be anything he isn’t. He has fought a war on two fronts, had to put up with the constant lies and misinformation from the press, fight a battle with our Congress who would rather hold hands with the minority party, fight a battle with our intelligence community and finally fight a war with his whiny “base” who expect him to be everything to everyone.

To now accuse him of coddling terrorist is pathetic.

Now lets get to this sentence from the papers:

Speaking in subdued, almost chastened, tones at a joint news conference in the East Room.

Take a gander:

A sample of what he answered when asked about Iraq and those who fight Democracy there:

These people are totalitarians. Islmaic facists. They have a point of view. They have a philosophy. And they want to impose that philosophy on the rest of the world. And Iraq just happens to be one of those battles in the war on terror. And Tony brings up an important point: why are they resisting so hard? What is it about democracy they can’t stand? What they can’t stand about democracy is this: democracy is the exact opposite of what they believe. They believe they can impose their will, they believe there’s no freedom of religion, they believe there’s no women’s rights. They have a dark vision of the world. And that’s why they’re resisting so mightily.

[…]You know, foreign policy, for awhile, just basically said, if it seems okay on the surface, just let it be. And guess what happened? There was resentment and hatred that enabled these totalitarians to recruit and to kill, which they want to continue to do to achieve their objectives. And the best way to defeat them in the long run is through the spread of liberty.

And liberty has had the capacity to change enemies to allies. Liberty has had the capacity to help Europe become whole, free, and at peace. History has proven that freedom has got the capacity to change the world for the better, and that’s what you’re seeing.

Yeah, chastened.

It’s a good and truthful message.

Another “chastened” message from Bush about the UN:

PRESIDENT BUSH: I’d like to see a United Nations that’s effective, one that joins us in trying to rid the world of tyranny, one that is willing to advance human rights and human dignity at its core, one that’s an unabashed organization — is unabashed in their desire to spread freedom. That’s what I’d like to see, because I believe that freedom will yield to peace. I also believe freedom is universal. I don’t believe freedom is just a concept only for America or Great Britain. It’s a universal concept. And it troubles me to know that there are people locked in tyrannical societies that suffer. And the United Nations ought to be clear about its desire to liberate people from the clutches of tyranny. That’s what the United Nations ought to be doing, as far as I’m concerned.

If this is “chastened” then I say, lets see Bush “chastened” more often.

The MSM at work, it’s a pathetic sight to behold.

UPDATE

Check out this headline:

Analysis: Euphoria gone for Bush and Blair

And the picture they chose to go with:

As always, the bias in the MSM rears it’s ugly head once again. Watching the video you come away with a completely different view. But this isn’t the view the MSM wants you to believe so they lie. Par for the course.

UPDATE II

You think MP Galloway from Britian is a DummiesU alumni?

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber – if there were no other casualties – be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”

Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it – but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq – as Blair did.”

This is getting alot of attention but really doesn’t surprise me in the least. This is a perfect example of the left’s moral equivalency hocus pocus.

Moral equivalency in Galloway’s world would be this I suppose:

In detail, with supporting documentation, the report shows how Saddam Hussein, via Oil-for-Food, gave rights to buy millions of barrels of underpriced Iraqi oil to two politicians who supported his regime: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua and British Member of Parliament George Galloway.

It’s all good as long as your getting rich off the suffering of others.

Other’s Blogging:


Bush never pretends to be anything he isn’t. He has fought a war on two fronts, had to put up with the constant lies and misinformation from the press, fight a battle with our Congress who would rather hold hands with the minority party, fight a battle with our intelligence community and finally fight a war with his whiny “base” who expect him to be everything to everyone.

>