A Bit Of A Stretch
From John Podhoretz in the Corner:
Drudge's current lead headline is "Bush Candor: Decisions Have Made Iraq More Unstable." He then links to a CBS News press release on the President's interview tomorrow with 60 Minutes. The thing is, CBS's press release is a remarkable, brain-twisting stretch, in which something that its own Scott Pelley says is metamorphosed into something CBS claims Bush says.
"When pressed by Pelley, Bush concedes that conditions in Iraq are much worse now," the press release reads, and then quotes the exchange between them.
Pelley: But wasn't it your Administration that created the instability in Iraq?
Bush: Our Administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran... He was a significant source of instability.
Pelley: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.
Bush: Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.
"Decisions have made things unstable" is what Bush says. Bush was acknowledging that things are unstable in Iraq due to mistakes made under his stewardship.
It's Scott Pelley who says "it's much more unstable now."
Kind of a big difference, no?
I've noticed that a few times on the Drudge Report. He leaves a rather misleading/negative headline up for a couple of days sometimes. What's up with him?
As for the above, is anyone really surprised?
JASmius adds: Why is it considered a given that "instability" is necessarily a bad thing? Nazi Germany was "stable" (until we destroyed it); the Soviet Union was "stable" (until we induced its collapse); Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "stable" (until we deposed him). Was any of the aforementioned examples of "stability" a good thing for the United States or the rest of the world?
Is it a good thing for us that the Iranian mullahgarchy is "stable" and thus safe and unfettered to pursue nuclear weapons that they will use to make Israel and ourselves "unstable"?
Scott Pelley has just learned a life lesson of mystical proportions: war makes things "unstable". Here's his next lesson, if he chooses to accept it: the way to restore "stability" isn't to run away, but to win.
"Stability" is first cousin to "peace"; we can have our version of it (just defined above) or we can have the enemy's version of it, in which we are all dead.
I know which version I prefer; does Scott Pelley (or Matt Drudge)?
Drudge's current lead headline is "Bush Candor: Decisions Have Made Iraq More Unstable." He then links to a CBS News press release on the President's interview tomorrow with 60 Minutes. The thing is, CBS's press release is a remarkable, brain-twisting stretch, in which something that its own Scott Pelley says is metamorphosed into something CBS claims Bush says.
"When pressed by Pelley, Bush concedes that conditions in Iraq are much worse now," the press release reads, and then quotes the exchange between them.
Pelley: But wasn't it your Administration that created the instability in Iraq?
Bush: Our Administration took care of a source of instability in Iraq. Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear weapon to compete against Iran... He was a significant source of instability.
Pelley: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.
Bush: Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.
"Decisions have made things unstable" is what Bush says. Bush was acknowledging that things are unstable in Iraq due to mistakes made under his stewardship.
It's Scott Pelley who says "it's much more unstable now."
Kind of a big difference, no?
I've noticed that a few times on the Drudge Report. He leaves a rather misleading/negative headline up for a couple of days sometimes. What's up with him?
As for the above, is anyone really surprised?
JASmius adds: Why is it considered a given that "instability" is necessarily a bad thing? Nazi Germany was "stable" (until we destroyed it); the Soviet Union was "stable" (until we induced its collapse); Iraq under Saddam Hussein was "stable" (until we deposed him). Was any of the aforementioned examples of "stability" a good thing for the United States or the rest of the world?
Is it a good thing for us that the Iranian mullahgarchy is "stable" and thus safe and unfettered to pursue nuclear weapons that they will use to make Israel and ourselves "unstable"?
Scott Pelley has just learned a life lesson of mystical proportions: war makes things "unstable". Here's his next lesson, if he chooses to accept it: the way to restore "stability" isn't to run away, but to win.
"Stability" is first cousin to "peace"; we can have our version of it (just defined above) or we can have the enemy's version of it, in which we are all dead.
I know which version I prefer; does Scott Pelley (or Matt Drudge)?
posted by Jennifer at 5:52 AM
<<< Home