New York Times, again...(sheesh)

The New York Times once again misleads the American people about the war. This from today's article on Bush's speech:

The president has been consistent in saying American troops would remain in Iraq until the job is done, since he said otherwise during the campaign, when Matt Lauer of NBC asked Mr. Bush in a televised interview in August 2004 about the war.

"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush said, a remark Democrats immediately seized on as defeatist.

Reading this one could be forgiven for thinking that Bush was saying he didn't think we could win in Iraq. In fact, that's what Richard Stevenson wants you to believe. The problem, unfortunately for Mr. Stevenson, is that Bush never said that about the War in Iraq. Here is the context for Bush's statement to Matt Lauer, as reported in the Washington Post:

President Bush said in an interview broadcast Monday that the war on terrorism cannot be won in the traditional sense of victory, one in a series of statements he has made in the past few days to lower public expectations and mitigate political problems before he reintroduces himself to the nation Thursday night.

Bush has given a spate of interviews in the run-up to this week's Republican National Convention in New York, and he was asked by Matt Lauer of NBC's "Today" show, in an interview taped Saturday in Ohio and shown on the convention's opening day, if the war on terrorism can be won.

"I don't think you can win it," Bush said. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

There is a huge difference between saying the war in Iraq can't be won, and saying the War on Terror (a war on a tactic) can't be won. This is either incredibly sloppy reporting, or it is an underhanded attempt to sell the subversive, anti-war propaganda the Times has come to specialize in. I report, you decide.