Editor&Publisher: Tony Snow: Bush Disagrees With Gates, Says We Are 'Winning'

Tony Snow: Bush Disagrees With Gates, Says We Are 'Winning'
By E&P Staff
Published: December 05, 2006

NEW YORK At today's meeting with reporters at the White House, the major topics for Press Secretary Tony Snow, as expected, were the pending release of the Iraq Study Group's report -- and today's surprise, the admission by Robert Gates, at his confirmation hearings as new Pentagon chief, that the U.S., indeed, is not winning the war in Iraq.

Snow said that, as far as he knows, the president has not backed away from his recent statement that the U.S. is actually "winning" in Iraq. He also suggested that Gates, elsewhere in his testimony, seemed to say that maybe we weren't losing and we weren't winning. And he charged that the press was being too negative about all this: "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission," he said.

He was also pushed on the question of the Iraq conflict turning into a civil war -- which he seriously questioned. "Well, I think one of the dangers is that civil war had been used in a political context," he said. "It's interesting -- what intervened other than an election to get people to change the label?"

A reporter shot back: "The violence got worse, I suppose."

Snow concluded: "I said it's very difficult to figure out that there is any clear definition, and if you have one, please pass it on."...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003468542

F**k him and his superiors. They are all delusional.

Tony needs a vacation. How about replacing him with Sean Hannity? Do you think that Sean would walk away from his $35 million/year radio/TV contract if the "decider in chief" asked him?

the chimp probably does believe it.

For Bush to admit we are actually "losing" his criminal war of agression!?

And Juan Cole has a friend who says this is imminent.

Those guys think they're going to wind up back in power, and that they're actually the majority of Iraqis. The military equation is the same now as it was in 2003; any standup fight by the Iraqi resistance would get blown to bits in about two hours.

Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G Z. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are only mulling over the timing. The breach of the Green Zone security the other day was a test of their ability to get in, and not a real attempt at a coup, though it is reported as such. Every Iraqi I talk to says unambiguously that the resistance attached to the former regime would take out the Shiite militias with barely a fight, but that the resistance will not commit wholesale revenge against the Shiite population. They just want to get rid of the "carpet baggers" from Iran.' http://www.juancole.com/2006_11_01_juanricole_archive.html

Judging from your handle, I'd guess you're right there in the thick of it. I'm looking forward to more informative posts from you!

And please come home safely.

You have to realize, the Sunnis have been in power here for all of living memory. They simply can't conceive of the Shiites as anything other than hewers of wood and drawers of water. Iraqi Sunnis, especially tribesmen, talk about fighting the Shiites the way Southern aristocrats talked in 1861 -- a quick cavalry charge, the Yankees will run, and the war will be over. 'Tain't so.

As for the Green Zone, the armed groups (as they're called in the press here) have about as much chance of overrunning it as they do of invading Washington, D.C. The ex-army officers in the insurgency remember what a standup fight against American armor, artillery and air power is like; trust me, they want no part of it. The asymmetrical thing is working for them, anyway; no reason to all get killed off in a banzai charge.

militarily it was a loss for the Viet Cong; politically, it showed that the war was unwinnable by the Americans.

looking up the definition of 'civil war.' I looked in mine, and ten seconds later had the definition: "A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Full stop. That's the full and only definition, and I think even Il Dunce would have to admit that Iraq meets this definition.

"I AM, I say, I AM!"

Snowjob has to know that most of what he has to say is bushit. That has to screw with your mind. I get the feeling that eventually we are going to be picking up the tab for disability pay for all of *'s press secretaries.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061205-1.html
Transcript: Press Briefing by Tony Snow 12/5/06

war can be summarized by the type of parsing done be Tony Snowjob in that press conference.

I mean, if you're down two touchdowns in the fourth quarter, and later come back to win, you COULD claim you were "winning" all along.

Somebody should ask George if we're BEHIND.

I'm surprised they have been touting the troop death figures as a sign of progress. Bad as October was, it was better than October 2005, and November was better than November 2005. I guess they just want to stay off the whole "troop death" subject. But it beats arguing the definition of civil war when there's a new, Madrid-sized multiple bombing every week.

Sheesh, even at spinning you can second-guess them. Most. Incompetent. Administration. Ever. (With apologies to Grant and Harding).

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Sept 2006 72
Sept 2005 49
Sept 2004 80
Sept 2003 31

Oct 2006 106
Oct 2005 96
Oct 2004 63
Oct 2003 44

Nov 2006 70
Nov 2005 84
Nov 2004 137
Nov 2003 82

Seriously. He's even more condescending, lying, spinning, smarmier, etc. than even Ari The Liar Fleischer. And I never thought that was possible. The disdain, the sneer that you see while someone like David Gregory is asking a question that exposes the truth.

There's an extra hot corner in Hell with Snow's name on it.

Bake

That's a slur upon the memory of Scott McClellan, to think the likes of Tony Snow could take his title as Worst Spokesman Ever.