Yes.

Well, we can't have any criticism of the man who was President in 1998. Even bringing up his name in connection with a critical comment invites the wrath of some.

It is a stupid error, but it is the kind of error that reveals a great deal. It shows shows just how deluded these people are with BDS.

the only difference between the "Guardian" and "Weekly World News" is that "Weekly World News" is actually entertaining...and some of ITS stories just might be true!

"Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby...Space Creature Survived UFO Crash in Arkansas" certainly SOUNDS plausible!! :)

The Weekly World News is going out of business (really).

Couldn't handle the competition, I guess.

What, you are expecting actual honesty and fact-checking from journalists? When those kinds of archaic and useless things get in the way of their stories?

Come on!

Yeah, never let facts get in the way of Bush-bashing.

Several of our own resident lefties seem to live by that credo, too.

That reminds me of when Lincoln ok'd the D Day invasion...

macofromoc "That reminds me of when Lincoln ok'd the D Day invasion..." Lincoln? Not Coolidge? Damn!

p.s. for a GREAT view/read go to AtlasShrugs...best photo of the year, and more!!

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/07/sunday-in-the-p.html

Justrand, I agree. Best pictures of the century. Think I'll send Atlas a bottle of Flex-all 454 to keep the finger limber.

Justrand:

p.s. for a GREAT view/read go to AtlasShrugs...best photo of the year, and more!!

Damn, I never knew!

Where do I send cash to the "Cheney/Satan 08" campaign?

At lest then if that "ticket wins the nutjobs/terrorist apologists and moonbats could get help they need via the Disabilities Act.

BDS could be classified as REAL and not just a "vague feeling."

Lee? Mantis?

Anyone else notice that the lefties tend to vanish when stories like this appear?

Its one thing to focus on the mistake aspect.

What I find more interesting is that the Clinton Administration was pro-torture as an anti-terrorism policy (or at least not anti-torture).

"That reminds me of when Lincoln ok'd the D Day invasion..."

That's nothing. In TRUTH, after the Japanese attached Pearl Harbor FDR ordered US forces into French occupied territory. In Africa! At least Iraq and Afghanistan are only a few time zones apart...

Ok, so I read the article ... a few times, and I'm not sure that the Guardian is saying that Bush was in office in '98; but, may be thinking that anywhere they can drop in a dig at Bush is a good thing - regardless of context.

That sentence doesn't really belong in the article, as it stands, and - as such, it doesn't warrant being the lead sentence in that paragraph.

Is this is a sign of time-shifting your BDS, or just very poor writing/editing?

Then again, what do you expect from a guy who hyphenates his name?

... unless, of course, I'm missing the obvious.

It's not the best article in the world -- everybody has a bad day, including reporters and editors. For Kim to use this one, small example has justification to disregard a whole news service, though, is pretty stupid and short-sighted. The Guardian is the largest independent news service in the world; and by "independent," that means not being owned by any corporate entity which could potentially create a conflict of interest. There are no Microsoft's or General Electric's or Rupert Murdoch's to worry about influencing what shows up (or doesn't appear) in the Guardian.

As for the article itself, it mixes up facts about the report which do exist. The UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee did release a "Report to Rendition" on 7/28/07. This report is critical of the Bush administration's less than humane practices with detainees. In fact, here's a description of the report in the Times, which is Murdoch-owned and not exactly a lefty rag: "At the same time, however, the British agencies have struggled, and with evident distaste, with the increasing evidence of the US use of rendition, and the risk of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The committee criticises the agencies for being slow to detect the emerging pattern of 'renditions to detention' (interrogation outside the normal legal system) during 2002, as well as the use of Guantanamo Bay."

As for the Brit's plan to swap intelligence about bin Laden with the CIA in 1998 and 1999, as long as the CIA gave it's assurances that bin Laden would be treated humanely, I'll quote the report itself: "In 1998,SIS believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama Bin Laden. Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the U.S., SIS [Secert Intelligence Service] sought Ministerial approval. This was given, provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment.30 In the event, insufficient intelligence was obtained and therefore the operation could not proceed."

So there you go. The Guardian had an off-day, but this is all information that any one of you could have gathered if you weren't too busy bashing anyone who disagrees with you.

The Guardian is the largest independent news service in the world;

And the BBC is simply glorious.

What has been said is true- they never miss a chance to Bush-bash. And if that means having a bad day,well, they'll just have to have that bad day.

Independently, or course.

"Less than humane" practices with detainees..

Oh right- anything less than the Ritz-Carlton is inhumane.

Screw them.

I am all for coercive interrogation practices that do no permanent physical damage. It is the most productive.

Four people come to mind immediately when I hear some idiot talking about inhumane practices with detainees. They were strung on a bridge after being burned. We could only hope that captured Americans get only the same type of "inhumane" treatment the US offers rather than what they usually get.

Damn you.

"Does anyone actually take this publication seriously? "

Bwahahahahahaha

A hell of a lot more seriously than the oft unfounded, ill-informede and untutored rantings from LDS sufferers and rightwingnut whackos like Kim & Lorie, both of whom love to leap before looking.

All righties seem to have a common genome w/ lemmings.

The word is spelled "informed" freedomfries. Those damned glass houses again.

Remedial english lesson for the low-IQ conservatives.

Bolded for emphasis.

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 plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament's intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.

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."

Now let's break it down for the Dr. Suess crowd here at Wizbang.

The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament's intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.

The 1998 plot is discussed in a report about the Bush administration's practice of rendition.

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

This is referring again to rendition - which would be illegal if carried out by British agents.

The article does not attribute the 1998 plot to Bush. It just points out that the 1998 plot is mentioned in a report about Bush's rendition activities.

I guess what I used to attribute to dishonesty is actually just ignorance and stupidity. My bad...

Cue the chattering idiots..

and why is it that not one of the conservatives that inhabit this blog could figure this out on their own. Good grief - talk about dumb...

Lee, they could have determined this, but the real intent of Kim and all the suckyphants here at the Wizasylum is to pick up themes from fellow-minded blogsites and retrumpet the half-baked or misrepresented story until it becomes established legend.

The main problem for this crowd is that The Guardian has skewered BushCo and the lies his war of choice is based upon on countless occasions. To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, "reality has a BDS bias."

Lee, they could have determined this, but the real intent of Kim and all the suckyphants here at the Wizasylum is to pick up themes from fellow-minded blogsites and retrumpet the half-baked or misrepresented story until it becomes established legend.

Aye, FreedomFries. I think that any normal person who's paid even a minute's attention to political events of the last decade will be intelligent enough to realize that the Guardian article didn't imply that Bush is responsible for actions taken by the CIA in 1998 and 1999 since he wasn't in office then. To somebody who's completely stupid about political events, and has no prior knowledge of such before reading this article, then the Guardian piece would look like it implies that Bush is responsible. (As I stated previously, it's not the best written article.) But who in the reading audience for this article is that naive?

If the Guardian meant to be clear, they certainly could have followed the standards known to every competent student as early as 7th-grade:

Who
What
When
Where
Why

So show me where the Guardian noted that the 1998 plot occured during the Clinton Administration, or where the writer noted that US policy did not change when Administrations did. Failing such evidence, the default is that the Guardian intended the deceit, since the article was written by an author, and edited at at least 2 levels prior to publication.

I am no longer amazed at how leftist asshats like freedom fried and the exhaulted lee ward can twist the obivous to fit their sinister derangement.