The Times exposes the truth about Bush. Again!

[MarkG]

this is from the edited transcript....

THE TIMES: Mr President, one country there’s a little concern about, as you know, in Britain, particularly, is Zimbabwe.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.

THE TIMES: Which is headed by a brutal tyrant.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, he is.

I think I’ve called him that. He’s ruined a wonderful country, a country that used to not only feed Africa — in other words, an exporter of food — and now an importer of food, because of (his) decisions.

[MarkG]

When we win in Afghanistan and Iraq, it’s a beginning of the end. Talking about the war on terror. If we don’t win here, it’s the beginning of the beginning.

let's hope the begining doesnt begin....

[Ramo]

A (generally reliable) conservative paper has an interview article that's favorable to Shrub. TZOMGGFFFF!!!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ramo
A (generally reliable) conservative paper has an interview article that's favorable to Shrub. TZOMGGFFFF!!!

Shhhh. You'll confuse Drake again...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


What does that even mean?

If you were from anywhere other than Nebraska, you'd probably know.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Times exposes the truth about Bush. Again!

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I find it strange that you immediately accused The Times of being biased over something as innocuous as a claim that Bush might not be the idiot he's often portrayed as. Seems to say a lot about you and your thought processes...

This is an interview by Gerard Baker, who is a conservative Times opinion columnist. You'd expect him to give Bush an unfavorable interview?

[child of Thor]

Bush is quite lovable, in a rogueish han solo kinda way? sometimes.
And then he is so obviously using his power for his own gains, and the lover affair is over

And yes the Times is one of britains right wing papers, but in the same way the bbc is seen as left wing, they also report things in a fairly objective manner most of the time.

[MrFun]

Next thing you know, Drake will pull up an article by a liberal that shockingly paints Hilary Clinton in a favorable light!


Bring on the shocking revelations, Drakey!

[GePap]

Drake bested once again.

How novel...well, not really.

[Admiral]

What is surprising in this whole affair is that the Times carried the downing street memo at all. Whether this says something about less biased british journalism, or about the veracity of the memo itself, is up to the audience.

[Max Webster]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Bush is quite lovable, in a rogueish han solo kinda way? sometimes.

I find Bush to have a dorkish, goofy quality about him. Not very articulate either. He doesn't inspire me as a leader. I wouldn't follow him into battle or even vote for him, that is for sure.

He is like Canada's idiot Chretien, another uninspiring leader.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Bush is quite lovable, in a rogueish han solo kinda way? sometimes.
And then he is so obviously using his power for his own gains, and the lover affair is over

And yes the Times is one of britains right wing papers, but in the same way the bbc is seen as left wing, they also report things in a fairly objective manner most of the time.

Well, quite. The Times is not right wing imo.

As a regular reader I can say it is very much against Bush and his foray of Iraq.

[Theben]

THERE has probably never been a president, there may not have been a human being, who observes punctuality with the sort of fanaticism that President George W. Bush brings to every aspect of his life.

Bah. This fanatic can't even make the trains run on time.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Times exposes the truth about Bush. Again!

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I find it strange that you immediately accused The Times of being biased over something as innocuous as a claim that Bush might not be the idiot he's often portrayed as.

Blaiming the media for something that pundits do? If I say Bush is an idiot, that does not mean the NYT says that Bush is an idiot. You need to learn to distinguish between editorials and news, Drake.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Admiral
What is surprising in this whole affair is that the Times carried the downing street memo at all. Whether this says something about less biased british journalism, or about the veracity of the memo itself, is up to the audience.

The Times stance is critical of the Iraqi situation. That is why.