Well, I have a little bit of a different take.

He was asked, twice whether we were winning. He emphatically and unhesitatingly said no. Later, he was asked, do you agree with the general who said that while we are not winning, neither are we losing. THAT was what he answered not "at this point" (and with a bit of a hesitation, to my ear).

So, what's with the qualification? What could that have indicated? To my mind, considering there was absolutely no qualification in his answering no to whether we were winning, then he must be qualifying the losing part of the equation. Basically, "We aren't winning, we aren't losing, but we're probably closer to losing than we are to winning and WILL be losing if we don't fix something." Which is a far cry from the Bush and Rumsfeld doctrine of plugging their ears and going "lalalalalalala" anytime someone suggests that our strategies MIGHT lead to losing.

Lots of boys behaving badly these days, eh?;)

Oh, and it's an obvious observation, Neph- one you apparently already made for yourself.

No- I just knew I could count on someone here to make that claim. It was a matter of understanding my fellows on LoT- not an observation of my own.

Just as I know that people will interpret words as they want to see them-

Well, when given the sort of precise information we are given in most news sources, it is prudent to make interpretations based on past observations.