I really appreciate the fact that the Washington Post actually published their transcript of their exclusive interview “25 Minutes in the Oval Office.” [1] One good aspect about getting the actual transcript is you can pretty much see the ingredients that went into making their front page story “U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time." [2] But the thing is, I’m not sure the Post’s interview questions added up to mean what they thought it did.

My colleague Ethan pointed out the Post  tried to make it seem like Bush gave them a scoop when in reality he didn’t give them anything. So let’s parse the actual transcript.

The Post's headline claims Bush says the U.S. isn’t winning the war in Iraq. But reading Bush's  vaunted statement itself, you can see the Post is making hay out of nothing.

Are we winning in Iraq, in your estimation?

You know, I think an interesting construct that General [Peter] Pace uses is, "We're not winning, we're not losing." There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing -- constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself.

The answer goes on for another 348 more words which definitely do not get at the heart of the question: ‘We’re losing aren’t we?’ Yet it was that first part of the quote “we’re not winning” that got touted as the news. It was probably the Post’s headline that prompted Bush to do the press conference this morning.

And when the reporters tried to revisit this “Can we come back to General Pace’s formulation about not winning, not losing…” Bush basically that because when he's speaking to the American public, the enemy is also listening , therefore he can never be completely honest with the public.

Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win. Look, I've got four constituencies I speak to on a regular basis; one is the American people, who are justifiably frustrated at the progress in Iraq. And they expect the commander in chief and the people in Washington to support our troops …. The second constituency is the enemy . …

The enemy wants to know whether or not the United States has the will to stay engaged in this ideological struggle. They don't believe we do. That's what they say. And I believe that's what they believe. (emphasis mine)

I think it’s interesting because Bush is admitting that every time he speaks to the American public it is propaganda aimed at al-Qaida.

But reading the entire transcript you can also see Bush pulls out a few chestnuts,  and the reporters laugh about being treated dismissively. 

[Bush] Anyway, you just need to know that's who I'm speaking to when I speak. And to you, of course. You're the objective filter through which my -- (Laughter.)

[Reporter] I suspect your message gets out. (Laughter.)

Bush follows this up by talking (pretty insincerely) about how much he respects the press corps and the hard work they do, but he can’t help himself and ends with a total dig at the reporters.

Good. That's what decision-makers do, Peter, people who seize the moment and make decisions to lead give people things to write about.

Did you notice that? He makes the decisions and they're just the unimportant people who get to write about them.

Another chestnut Bush mentions and the reporters don’t ask about is this concept of “negotiating” with himself. He’s very good at stonewalling and even when the reporters push, just a little bit, for an answer he doesn’t give them squat and then laughs about it.

On immigration -- you mentioned immigration. Can you envision supporting a deal --

See, now you're getting me to negotiate with myself --

No, no, no, but this is a policy --

Same thing he's trying to do. (Laughter.) It's a classic ploy. (Laughter.)

And:

Do you support a bill that would give the District of Columbia residents a vote in the House of Representatives?

This is a Fletcher question. This is a Fletcher question.

He's not asking about a specific question. We're asking about your broad view on --
Do the residents of the District of Columbia -- should they have a vote in the House?

I will look at what Congress proposes. I will look carefully at what Congress proposes.

But what is your philosophical view of that? Because we've gone to Iraq to provide freedom for people in Iraq, and the people in this country --

I understand that. You're trying to get me to opine on specific legislation that may be forthcoming, and I look forward to working with Congress on that.

I'm actually asking you to opine on general --

That's my answer. (Laughter.)

-- philosophy on whether --

I know what you're trying to ask me to opine on, and I'm answering that there is -- I will look and see what Congress proposes.

Reading the transcript I have to say it reminded me of Jay Rosen of Press Think’s most recent essay, "Retreat from Empiricism: On Ron Suskind's Scoop," [3] and how the media continue to act in wake of the Bush administration’s position that they, not the media, shape reality. The Post wrote the headline “U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time” but clearly the follow-up press conference (“Bush Maintains 'Victory in Iraq is Achievable') [4] shows that Bush is controlling the narrative on the Iraq war, not The Washington Post or any other media outlet. And certainly not reality.