When Left Wing News papers have Bush-itis REAL BAD

[HOZ]

This is why I find is extremely difficult to take the Guardian seriously as a serious new gathering organ.

I will let you figure out the mistake.

What a joke!

MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely.

The report criticises the Bush administration's approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents. It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Well, the report is not going to get anywhere by criticizing the policies of a President that no longer holds office. But I agree that the article frames this in a very strange manner.

[RougeUnderoos]

They are guilty of really bad writing, but I don't see the mistake. Is it the timeline that has you all hot and bothered?

[Mike F]

I agree with Rouge.

This article is about rendition policies -- "the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured."

The criticism of the Bush Admin. isn't trying to pin the 1998 refusal to guarantee not to torture on them (which I assume is how HOZ read it), but to contrast MI6's policy of refusing to hand over prisoners where they might face inhumane treatment with Bush's policy of doing just that.

[Cowperson]

I think HOZ wanted to see "1998" and "Clinton" put together . . . . which is fair.

However, the overall article doesn't merit the thread headline "When Left Wing Newspapers Have Bush-itis REAL BAD."

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Yes, Cowperson hit the nail on the head. The simplist of mistakes.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Yes, Cowperson hit the nail on the head. The simplist of mistakes.

What is the "mistake"?

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by Mike F

What is the "mistake"?

I think the point - as Cowperson pointed out - is that the article makes reference to mistakes the "Bush administration" made in 1998. Jr. Bush didn't become President until 2000....well January 2001 if we're splitting hairs, and Bush Sr.'s administration ended in '92.

Are they comparing a Britsh policy from 1998 to an early 90s US policy or to the current US policy?? I'm not sure. Or maybe I'm reading the article totally wrong...

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

I think the point - as Cowperson pointed out - is that the article makes reference to mistakes the "Bush administration" made in 1998. Jr. Bush didn't become President until 2000....well January 2001 if we're splitting hairs, and Bush Sr.'s administration ended in '92.

Are they comparing a Britsh policy from 1998 to an early 90s US policy or to the current US policy?? I'm not sure. Or maybe I'm reading the article totally wrong...

IMO, you're reading it wrong, though it's somewhat understandable as the article's poorly written.

As I pointed out above, the article is about rendition policies -- "the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured."

MI6's refusal to hand over Bin Laden (in fact or in effect) to the CIA without assurances about his treatment is used to show that they followed general international norms.

The criticism in the report (and thus article) concerning "the Bush administration's approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents" refers not the CIA's policies in 1998, but to the current admistration's well known policy of sending prisoners off to Syria (IIRC) knowing full well they'd be tortured, complelely in the face if international rendition laws.

[Cal-Gal]

Aha...thanks. Makes sense now. I was unsure about when the 'report' was written.

I think you're right...its kind of hard to discern exactly what the thrust of the article is.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Mike F

IMO, you're reading it wrong, though it's somewhat understandable as the article's poorly written.

As I pointed out above, the article is about rendition policies -- "the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured."

MI6's refusal to hand over Bin Laden (in fact or in effect) to the CIA without assurances about his treatment is used to show that they followed general international norms.

The criticism in the report (and thus article) concerning "the Bush administration's approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents" refers not the CIA's policies in 1998, but to the current admistration's well known policy of sending prisoners off to Syria (IIRC) knowing full well they'd be tortured, complelely in the face if international rendition laws.

sigh....

There was NO comparison.

The whole articles thesis is that Bin Laden could have been captured in 1998 but wasn't because MI6 got cold feet because the CIA wouldn't be nice to him. And then the article went on to blame Bush who wasn't in power at the time.

I am sure 3500 people feel much beter knowing MI6 played by the law and that in 1998 it was already Bush and Cheney's fault.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

sigh....

There was NO comparison.

The whole articles thesis is that Bin Laden could have been captured in 1998 but wasn't because MI6 got cold feet because the CIA wouldn't be nice to him. And then the article went on to blame Bush who wasn't in power at the time.

I am sure 3500 people feel much beter knowing MI6 played by the law and that in 1998 it was already Bush and Cheney's fault.

Anyone interested in reading that kind of article would know full well that Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with something that happened in 1998 so I don't know why this article irks you so much.

You don't have to look far to find a recent and essentially inarguable story about some stupid thing Bush and Cheney have done during their term in office.

Maybe you should start an thread about how poorly things are going in Iraq and blame that Left-Wing Bush-Itis.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by HOZ

sigh....

There was NO comparison.

The whole articles thesis is that Bin Laden could have been captured in 1998 but wasn't because MI6 got cold feet because the CIA wouldn't be nice to him. And then the article went on to blame Bush who wasn't in power at the time.

I am sure 3500 people feel much beter knowing MI6 played by the law and that in 1998 it was already Bush and Cheney's fault.

LOL

Get over your paranoia.

Here, go read the actual report. You'll see that neither the actual report nor the article on it are trying to pin anything on Bush or any other American for any events in '98 or '99 -- all they are talking about are British policies whereby they demand assurances that international laws will be followed.

The criticisms of Bush and his Administration's policies all involve post-9/11 activities.

It's a poorly written article, yes, but even more poorly read by someone hell-bent on finding crazy left wing conspirators under every rock.

[AC]

They have inflammation of the Bush? Eww...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyone interested in reading that kind of article would know full well that Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with something that happened in 1998 so I don't know why this article irks you so much.

You don't have to look far to find a recent and essentially inarguable story about some stupid thing Bush and Cheney have done during their term in office.

Maybe you should start an thread about how poorly things are going in Iraq and blame that Left-Wing Bush-Itis.

The article was stupid from a rag.

What is irksome is people "making sense of it" and telling me to get over my "paranoa".

Then we have you with

"you should start an thread about how poorly things are going in Iraq"



Just for you Rouge, and only because you called for it. I am still struggling with my paranoa.

New York Times and Iraq

[llama64]

No offense to anyone, but this is exactly why I don't read newspapers. More and more of "news papers" have become columnists and editorials, areas in which facts mean nothing and rhetoric everything. To attempt to glean any information out of them is like trying to drain a dry sponge.

The Guardian is a total rag and apparently employs high school level writers. That said, HOZ, you're talking about a UK based paper referring to US involvement. They are going to be anti-American whether Clinton, Bush or Carrot-top is the current President.

Re-reading that last sentence... Anyone else think they forgot a line or two? Or perhaps a word:

The report criticises the Bush administration's later approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents.

Seems like they forgot to put any context in. Again, poor level or writing, not an indication of conspiracy.

[Bobblehead]

Cowperson posted an interesting article a few months ago discussing media bias. In it it mentioned how people from the more extreme ends of the spectrum tend to see much more media bias than people people who are more centrist. Even within the same article, people on opposite ends of the political spectrum believed the article was biased the other way.

From the very far right, everything is biased to the left (and vice versa).

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Cowperson posted an interesting article a few months ago discussing media bias. In it it mentioned how people from the more extreme ends of the spectrum tend to see much more media bias than people people who are more centrist. Even within the same article, people on opposite ends of the political spectrum believed the article was biased the other way.

From the very far right, everything is biased to the left (and vice versa).

Hostile Media Perception . . . . . the scientific study.

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jpiliavi/965/hwang.pdf

Two groups of people of opposite points of view looking at identical news accounts but seeing different biases in the reporting.

Amusing as well that the right wing HOZ would post an op-ed piece from the New York Times to support his position . . . . . the Times infamously a few years came right out and said: "Of course we're a Liberal newspaper."

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by llama64

No offense to anyone, but this is exactly why I don't read newspapers. More and more of "news papers" have become columnists and editorials, areas in which facts mean nothing and rhetoric everything. To attempt to glean any information out of them is like trying to drain a dry sponge.

The Guardian is a total rag and apparently employs high school level writers. That said, HOZ, you're talking about a UK based paper referring to US involvement. They are going to be anti-American whether Clinton, Bush or Carrot-top is the current President.

Re-reading that last sentence... Anyone else think they forgot a line or two? Or perhaps a word:


Seems like they forgot to put any context in. Again, poor level or writing, not an indication of conspiracy.

Conspiracy? Who said anything about conspiracy? Wasn't me. I found this article to be annoyingly knee-jerk writing where they write about 1998 and then somehow tie it to Bush. And so stupidly done too.

Amusing as well that the right wing HOZ would post an op-ed piece from the New York Times to support his position . . . . . the Times infamously a few years came right out and said: "Of course we're a Liberal newspaper."

Yes, us Neo-cons are not suppose to do things like that. We should have been retreating to our caves, licking our wounds and planning our next great "take over the world" strategy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

The article was stupid from a rag.

What is irksome is people "making sense of it" and telling me to get over my "paranoa".

Then we have you with

"you should start an thread about how poorly things are going in Iraq"



Just for you Rouge, and only because you called for it. I am still struggling with my paranoa.

New York Times and Iraq

Thanks for that.

And if people trying to "make sense of it" bothers you, I gotta wonder if you posted this just so you'd get a bunch of backslapping, or maybe a red square out of the deal.

Originally Posted by HOZ

The whole articles thesis is that Bin Laden could have been captured in 1998 but wasn't because MI6 got cold feet because the CIA wouldn't be nice to him. And then the article went on to blame Bush who wasn't in power at the time.

Fair enough. I heard from an inside source that next week they are going to pin the Battle of Britain on Margaret Thatcher, so you could be right.


Seriouslyl though, how you see them blaming Bush is beyond me. It doesn't make sense. The article makes it pretty clear that if Bush's current policies had been followed by the Brits 1998, the Yanks could have caught the guy.