Well, someone's been active in spinsville. The headline on the New York Times front-pager on Dubya's speech reads:

For Once, President and His Generals See the Same War

The article itself gets around to contradicting its headline completely by its own third paragraph:

Mr. Bush closed with a vow to "settle for nothing less than complete victory," without saying how that squared with the plan to hand over the main burden of the war to the newly trained Iraqi troops who, American field commanders say, have done well in some recent battles but much less impressively in others. Nor did the president say how his rejection of "artificial timetables" would be sustained politically if the plan for American troops to step back decisively in 2006, and for Iraqi units to step forward, falters in the face of the unrelenting insurgency.

To say nothing of today's editorial, which correctly describes Dubya as completely out of touch with reality:

The address was accompanied by a voluminous handout entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which the White House grandly calls the newly declassified version of the plan that has been driving the war. If there was something secret about that plan, we can't figure out what it was. The document, and Mr. Bush's speech, were almost entirely a rehash of the same tired argument that everything's going just fine. Mr. Bush also offered the usual false choice between sticking to his policy and beating a hasty and cowardly retreat.

But, says the headline writer, things are changing. And he's not the only one. There is apparently similar balderdash in the L.A. Times as well.

Could two groups at two different newspapers find themselves trapped in exactly the same wishful thinking? They could. But modern America being what it is, I think there was someone spinning them that way regardless.