During the January 10 edition of MSNBC Live at 11 a.m. ET, onscreen captions continually used President Bush's favored term -- “surge” -- to describe the president's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq, even though that hour's host, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory, stated that the term “surge” is a “misnomer” and that “it's important to point out that ... it's not a surge, [because] it's going to take several months” to bring in the additional 20,000 troops.

Interviewing Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), Gregory stated that “the president ... will lay out his plan for what's called a 'troop surge' in Iraq in a prime-time speech to the nation tonight.” He then asked Reed, “Senator, a 'surge' is a misnomer, isn't it? It's going to take months for a deployment of 20,000 troops.” Reed agreed that “it will take months.”

But, about two minutes later, an onscreen graphic described the president's proposal as a “surge”:

About 10 minutes afterward, during a discussion with Washington Post assistant managing editor Rajiv Chandrasekaran and NBC News military analyst Rick Francona, Gregory stated that “it's important to point out that, while administration officials talk about a troop 'surge,' as Senator Reed pointed out this morning, it's not a surge. It's going to take several months to reach up to 20,000 troops.”

Nevertheless, graphics later on in the hour continued to use “surge”:

From the January 10 edition of MSNBC Live at 11 a.m. ET:

REED: First, the troop “surge” is not a surge, it's an escalation, a gradual escalation, and I think our adversaries will adapt to the gradual escalation. But also I think the troop size is insufficient. Baghdad is a community, metropolitan area of 7.5 million people. An additional 20,000 troops will not make a significant difference, will not change the game.

GREGORY: Would you support more troops, then?

REED: Well, I -- frankly, I think they cannot generate -- we cannot generate more troops. This is a limitation based on the force structure of the United States Army, and I've been supporting a larger Army for many years, not necessarily to commit to Iraq, but to re-establish a strategic reserve.

[...]

GREGORY: This is our continuing coverage on MSNBC. Iraq: What is next? The president, of course, will lay out his plan for what's called a “troop surge” in Iraq in a prime-time speech to the nation tonight. I'm joined by Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island on the Armed Services Committee. Senator, a “surge” is a misnomer, here, isn't it? It's going to take months for a deployment of 20,000 troops.

REED: It will take months. And that's because of the limitations of our overall Army and Marine Corps forces, and the way it can only be accomplished first by putting in a small contingent immediately.

[...]

GREGORY: Rick Francona, it's important to point out that, while administration officials talk about a troop “surge,” as Senator Reed pointed out this morning, it's not a surge. It's going to take several months to reach up to 20,000 troops inside of -- and it won't be all 20,000 in Baghdad, some will be in Anbar province. What difference can additional U.S. troops make at this point?

FRANCONA: Well, if you're going to put 15,000 -- I think that's the number we're getting ready to put into Baghdad -- and in the absence of any commitment of the central government under [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki to do anything about these Shia militias, and just like Rajiv said, to do something about this ongoing and escalating sectarian violence, I don't think 15,000 troops are going to do anything at all. They're just going to be there, pretty much in the way. We've got to get a commitment from the Maliki government that they're going to go after these Shia militias, that's the first step. However, I don't see either a willingness, or maybe even a capability of Maliki to do that.