About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Network news reported Bush indicated he was "open" to changing Iraq policy -- failed to note Bush's inflexibility on troop withdrawal

October 12, 2006 2:45 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: ABC, NBC, and CBS reported that, during a recent press conference, President Bush stated that he is "open" to changing the administration's Iraq war policy, but did not note that, during that same press conference, Bush reiterated his claim that the United States will not "leave before the job is done."

14 Comments

The October 11 broadcasts of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, and the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric reported that, during an October 11 press conference, President Bush indicated that he was "open" to changing the administration's Iraq war policy. The networks failed to note, however, that, during that same press conference, Bush reiterated his claim that the United States will not "leave before the job is done."

At the press conference, Bush answered several questions regarding recent statements on the Iraq war by Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and James Baker, former Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush, all of whom have sharply challenged the administration's stated "stay the course" strategy. During an October 5 press conference, Warner said that Iraq is "drifting sideways" and later stated:

WARNER: I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's the responsibility of our government, internally, to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take?

And I wouldn't take off the table any option at this time.

In an October 11 statement, Snowe agreed with Warner, saying: "As conditions in Iraq continue to worsen, there must be no question among the Administration, the Congress and the Iraqi unity government that staying the course is neither an option nor a plan." Baker, who, according to The Washington Post, co-chairs "a bipartisan commission tasked by Congress with assessing U.S. options in Iraq," said on the October 8 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "I think it's fair to say our commission believes that there are alternatives between the stated alternatives, the ones that are out there in the political debate, of 'stay the course' and 'cut and run.' "

On the October 11 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson reported that Bush "left open the door to overhauling his Iraq policy," and ABC News senior national security correspondent Jonathan Karl reported that Bush said these Republicans "may be right":

GIBSON: That is not to say it will be necessary, but it is an indication of just how uncertain is the future of what will be needed in Iraq. And indeed, the president today left open the door to overhauling his Iraq policy. Here's ABC's national security correspondent, Jonathan Karl, tonight at the Pentagon. Jon?

KARL: Charlie, discussions about overhauling Iraq policy have been going on behind closed doors at the White House and here at the Pentagon for weeks. Now those discussions are out in the open.

The escalating violence has led high-profile Republicans to say it may be time to change course in Iraq. Today, the president said they may be right.

BUSH [video clip]: If the plan is now not working -- the plan that's in place isn't working -- America needs to adjust. I completely agree.

On the October 11 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory reported that Bush is "not budging on his policy," then noted that Bush "didn't dispute the harsh assessment of Republican critics just back from the war zone":

GREGORY: A lot of issues: the president today acknowledging tough times in Iraq, acknowledging an emerging threat in North Korea, but he's not budging on his policy toward either.

[...]

GREGORY: Is the Bush policy working in Iraq? The staggering violence undermining Iraq's fledgling government, the president insisted military commanders are constantly adjusting but didn't dispute the harsh assessment of Republican critics just back from the war zone.

BUSH [video clip]: If the plan is now not working -- the plan that's in place isn't working -- America needs to adjust. I completely agree.

On the CBS Evening News, CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod also reported that Bush "sounded surprisingly open to the idea" that "Iraq's strategy may have to change":

AXELROD: Less than four weeks before Election Day, Mr. Bush came to the Rose Garden ready to push back on issues where he and Republicans have been hit hard, from North Korea, to the congressional page scandal, to Iraq. On that front, the president faces criticism from prominent Republicans like John Warner and James Baker, who now say Iraq's strategy may have to change. Today, the president sounded surprisingly open to the idea.

BUSH [video clip]: Senator Warner said, "If the plan isn't working, adjust." I agree, completely. Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change.

However, neither ABC nor NBC noted that, immediately after saying "[i]f the plan isn't working, adjust," Bush said that the United States will not "leave before the job is done":

BUSH: Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change. Stay the course also means: Don't leave before the job is done. And that's -- we're going to get the job done in Iraq. And it's important that we do get the job done in Iraq.

On CBS, Axelrod failed to note this during his report, though CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer mentioned Bush's remarks later in the broadcast during the "Free Speech" segment:

SCHIEFFER: At his news conference today, the president put it in the starkest terms. He said the stakes in Iraq could not be higher. He said if we leave before the job is done, the enemy is coming after us. That's about the hardest sell he could make, but whether he is right or wrong, it is going to take a hard sell, because most Americans simply do not agree.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by fantagor (October 12, 2006 3:00 pm ET)
         

      There are only three possible directions to move in Iraq:

      1. Stay the course, keep troop levels as is.

      2. Draw down troop levels (gradually or all at once, the so-called cut and run strategy).

      3. Increase troop levels.

      Bush has repeatedly baulked at 2. and 3., so by default he can't be in favor of ANY change in his Iraq policy, since there are no other avenues of change to consider. What will it take for the news to start reporting the truth about Bush?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (October 12, 2006 3:05 pm ET)
           

        He's just been very quiet about it. The fact is that Bush has been increasing troop levels. They've been increased by an estimated 20,000 since last June.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (October 12, 2006 3:37 pm ET)
             

          That's more of a restoration to previous levels. I'm talking about increasing them to the levels as per Shinseki's estimates, around 300,000. That he absolutely refuses to do because that would bring peace to the region. Bush doesn't want peace. He wants chaos. Chaos gives him an excuse to malinger in Iraq indefinitely.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by ellie717 (October 13, 2006 12:05 am ET)
               

            We don't have enough troops to do that.

            We don't have enough troops to keep troop levels at 150,000 for the next couple of years, much less until 2010.

            He's up the infamous creek without a paddle, and he's taken 600,000 Iraqi's, tens of thousands of American soldiers and billion of dollars there with him.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by notforyou (October 13, 2006 2:00 pm ET)
             

          about 3 years too late. The fact of the matter is Bush ignored this plea despite saying he'd listen to the Generals on the ground. He didn't and now he is playing catch up. I'm sure the families of the nearly 3,000 deada soldiers feel great comfort now that Bush is listening to his Generals.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (October 12, 2006 3:38 pm ET)
         

      If he really wants to "win" in Iraq, then troop levels need to be upped greatly. I don't like this war as much as probably just about anyone else on this board, but, if we send in a lot more folks, re-instate the old draft, and then take care of business, well, things would be taken care of. In Iraq at least. And of course, maybe we could start rationing things in the US, like they did do in WWII, to really support the troops, and our goals. It would make more sense than say, buying another stupid yellow ribbon magnet to toss on the back of your car saying that you support the troops, but have really done nothing to support them, other than saying you support them.

      Although, maybe we can just do what Bush told us to do to support the country after 9/11. We can all go shopping. Man, it's so sad, I can't even make this stuff up.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by notforyou (October 13, 2006 2:17 pm ET)
           

        But I think succesful diplomacy can encourage other nation's to help. That would require Bush to show humility. Making it a long shot. But we can still win hearts and minds and make this a success. But it won't work with more troops. I fear that will just compound the problem.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (October 12, 2006 3:51 pm ET)
         

      the insurgents ( or whatever their nom-de-guerre is today ) have attacked successfully a depot housing ammunition in Baghdad producing quite a fourth of July style fireworks. Kinds of makes a mockery of the statement " we fight them there instead of here ". kinda like the old John Wayne movies where the goal is to blow up the powderkegs first,starv them out and then attack. My tactical question, after the reports noone was injured, is why was there noone protecting the perimeter? I would expect injuries after such a brutal attack. If you are going to stay the course, then protect the friggin' assets you have and question the military leaders that screwed up. Tactically the military should never concentrate their assets in one geographical location and if you have to, in a war zone, ring the perimeter with manned fifty cals all around 24/7. Even I know that.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (October 12, 2006 4:02 pm ET)
         

      That Bush is waiting for the Rapture? Don't laugh; I think this is as good an explanation as any. According to Tim LaHaye (Left Behind), Iraq is going to play a central role in Armageddon. The first Bush administration, including Cheney, said invading Baghdad would be a bad idea. When was "Left Behind" published? Mid 90's? Who is one of Bush's TheoNazi advisors...Tim LaHaye. Did Bush read "Left Behind" and get a bright idea about Iraq? It all fits.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (October 12, 2006 4:04 pm ET)
           

        It could be plain old fashioned greed. I'm sure Bush and Cheney are getting a cut of the billions that Halliburton is skimming from Iraq.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (October 13, 2006 3:20 am ET)
             

          The elites know the game. Quid pro Quo is illegal. However if you went to the right schools you understand very well that if YOU take care of them when in office. THEY will take care of YOU when you get out of office. In California Gov Dukemajian vetoed a bill that would make the railroads have a caboose on trains, this being a safety issue. Six months after he left office, he sat on the Board of SP railroad. Its about laying up your treasures for later. No, they wont get the cut NOW, but as useless as George is he will get corporate cash by the bundles when he gets out of office. THAT is how it works and stays legal

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (October 13, 2006 11:02 am ET)
               

            Would anyone here be surprised to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Karl Rove on the board of directors of Halliburton and/or Exxon in 2009?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by notforyou (October 13, 2006 2:03 pm ET)
           

        then all these "christians" will finally leave the rest of us alone. So long suckers!

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (October 12, 2006 7:38 pm ET)
         

      when bush heard of the plane crash in new york, he asked if there was a sequel to my pet goat.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace