In an August 16 article on President Bush's speech at a Republican fundraiser, Associated Press staff writer Deb Riechmann reported that Bush accused those advocating for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq of promoting a “cut and run” strategy and claimed that if the United States pursues such a policy, “the enemy will follow us home.” And yet, Riechmann asserted that Bush had “kept the criticism of his opponents gentle, and left partisan politics out of it” -- apparently because Bush acknowledged that withdrawal proponents are “good people” and never actually identified the targets of his criticism as Democrats. New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg, in an August 17 article on the same speech, similarly reported that, while Bush had “picked up his party's attack against Democrats,” he had taken “a kinder, gentler approach than the one used by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in recent days.”

During a speech at an August 16 fundraiser for Lynn Swann, the Republican challenger in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race, Bush addressed the debate over the war in Iraq. He recycled the common Republican talking point that proposals to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq amount to a “cut and run” strategy and claimed, “If we leave before the mission is complete ... the enemy will follow us home”:

BUSH: This war on terror is more than just chasing down people hiding in caves, or preventing people from getting on airplanes to blow them up. The war on terror is fought in many theaters, and the central front in the war on terror now is Iraq. I say it's the central front because that's what the enemy themselves have said -- that they want to drive us from the region; that they view it as the central front, as well. They've got objectives in Iraq. They want the United States to suffer a defeat in Iraq. They want us to retreat from Iraq. They want to create such havoc on our TV screens by killing innocent people that the American people finally say, we've had enough -- leaving Iraq before the mission is complete.

And the mission is to have a country, a free country that can sustain itself, and govern itself, and defend itself, and serve as an ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East. That's the mission. And they want us to leave -- they want us to cut and run. And there's some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They're not bad people when they say that, they're decent people. I just happen to believe they're wrong. And they're wrong for this reason: This would be a defeat for the United States in a key battleground in the global war on terror. It would create a -- leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom.

If we were to leave before the mission is complete, it would hurt U.S. credibility. Who would want to stand with the United States of America if we didn't complete the mission, and a mission that can be completed and will be completed? If we cut and run, if we don't complete the mission, what would that say to those brave men and women who have volunteered to wear the uniform of the United States of America? If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home.

In the speech, Bush never specifically singled out Democrats as withdrawal supporters and conceded that such critics are “good” and “decent” people. This apparently led Riechmann to describe Bush's criticism as “gentle” and claim he had “left partisan politics out of it.” From her August 16 AP article:

President Bush said critics of his Iraq policies are advocating a “cut and run” strategy that would draw terrorists to American soil.

“Leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom,” Bush said Wednesday.

“If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home,” he said.

Even though he spoke at a political event, Bush kept the criticism of his opponents gentle, and left partisan politics out of it. His critics are mostly Democrats who contend he has not outlined a plan for success in Iraq. They are increasingly supportive of a timetable for bringing troops home.

“There are some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run,” the president said at a fundraiser for former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann, who is carrying GOP hopes for an upset over Pennsylvania's Democratic governor, Ed Rendell. “They're not bad people when they say that. They're decent people. I just happen to believe they're wrong.

Despite quoting Bush's attack at length, Riechmann failed to include any responses from withdrawal supporters and simply reported that Bush's critics ”are mostly Democrats who contend he has not outlined a plan for success in Iraq." By contrast, an August 16 Reuters article by staff writer Jeremy Pelofsky noted Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's (NV) response that Bush's “stay-the-course policy” in Iraq has made the United States “less safe” and has distracted the U.S. military from “destroying the enemy that attacked us five years ago.”

In his August 17 Times article, Rutenberg echoed Riechmann's characterization of the speech. He wrote that Bush had “picked up his party's attack against Democrats for having what the Republicans have called the wrong approach to the fight against terrorism. But his was a kinder, gentler approach than the one used by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in recent days.” Rutenberg went on to note that Cheney had recently “gone so far” as to claim that Senate Democratic candidate Ned Lamont's recent defeat of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Connecticut primary “would embolden 'Al Qaeda types.' ”

This item was originally headlined: “AP, NY Times characterized Bush's latest 'cut and run' speech as 'kinder, gentler,' and free of 'partisan politics.' ” The original headline suggested, inaccurately, that both the articles in the Associated Press and New York Times referred to President Bush's August 16 speech as “free of 'partisan politics.' ” That was in fact only the AP's characterization. By contrast, as Media Matters for America's item made clear, but our headline did not, the Times noted that Bush singled out Democrats for criticism but characterized the speech, in which Bush used his familiar “cut and run” rhetoric to criticize those advocating for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, as a “kinder, gentler approach than the one used by Vice President Dick Cheney and others in recent days.” We regret the inaccuracy.