AP plays it straight on Bush speech - yeah right

Here's the story the Red Star could hardly wait to print, courtesy of our friends at AP. The language and the tenor of the article leave no doubt on which side the reporter, Jennifer Loven, stands. How about this:

"Bush said he understands the public concerns about a war that has killed over 1,740 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion. "Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed," he said. "Every picture is horrifying and the suffering is real.""

Did the president really say "he understands the public concerns about a war that has killed over 1,740 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion."? Or did Ms. Loven inject that "information" (whether accurate or not)? We suspect the latter.

Love the quotation marks in this paragraph:

"He described the insurgents in raw terms, calling them "ruthless killers" who commit "savage acts of violence.""

Ms. Loven (in this news article, mind you) seems to find it strange or unusual that the president called terrorists ruthless killers and that he reminded us of their savagery. Are the quote marks really needed? Are these "raw terms", or cold hard reality? Why must news reporters sissify adjectives describing our enemies?

The article is peppered with negatives and conveys a sour outlook. Would anyone really mind if a(n American) reporter wrote from the perspective of an American? One can write a straight news story, yet convey the idea that you want the USA to prevail, right? In the 40's the papers talked about the "enemies", and, quite frankly, had some nasty things to say about those enemies. But so what? Isn't that the idea? What, are we afraid of Al Zarqawi and his scumbag minions suing us for slander and defamation?

Rambix says @!*# Zarqawi and the rest of the dead-enders. We call 'em as we see 'em.

UPDATE:

Here's the section of the president's speech transcript quoted above. See if you can find the highlighted material in the following before or after the president's actual words:

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability — and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. [Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying — and the suffering is real.] Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why."

Hmmm. Do you see the following words inserted by the reporter in the actual transcript?: "he understands the public concerns about a war that has killed over 1,740 Americans and 12,000 Iraqi civilians and cost $200 billion." You sure don't. And we rely on these hyenas for our news?