BUBBA VS BUSH.

The bias is so in your face it is almost unbelievable. Compare this with this.

Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to BUBBA VS BUSH.

  1. John says:

    You have to laugh at the Clinton section titled ‘A president with a personal touch’. Of course there is no mention of his most infamous personal touch!

       0 likes

  2. John says:

    Coreection – that is under related features.

       0 likes

  3. Abandon Ship! says:

    Bit like last Friday’s News Quiz where Obama is referred to as “the young fresh faced one” and Bush is referred to as the “stupid one” and Bush senior as “father of the stupid one”.

       0 likes

  4. Martin says:

    Clinton left his mark all right. All over some slappers dress.

       0 likes

  5. Frankos says:

    Clinton was exactly the smooth articulate liar that the centre Left adore. He left a lot of empty promises and jobs half done in his seconnd term knowing full well a Republican term was due.
    Kyoto, relaxing credit controls (the root of our present problems) and weakining of foreign policy in terms of CIA survelliance are just a few examples.
    His faux Southern charm seduced the Leftie thickies in a similar way to Gordon’s faux Northern lack of it.

       0 likes

  6. Sam Duncan says:

    It’s too easy to fall into the trap of accepting Clinton’s unfaithfulness to his wife as his biggest flaw. What about his limp response to the first WTC attack and the USS Cole incident? Not to mention his own foreign adventure in the former Yugoslavia. If the Bush administration had bombed a TV station full of journalists or a civilian car factory in Iraq we’d never hear the end of it. But hey, Bill had “charisma” so that’s okay.

       0 likes

  7. David Vance says:

    Sam,

    That’s exactly the point. Clinton’s serial political failures is what have been sanitised by the BBC, whilst any political progress Bush has made is eclipsed by verbal faux pas.

       0 likes

  8. James Morrison says:

    Sam Duncan

    Clinton’s ‘limp’ response to the 1993 WTC attack did not result in a war, coming at a huge cost to innocent life in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the death of thousands of US troops. Clinton responded by not rising to the bait and declaring that a holy war. Bush did rise to the bait, and more innocent lives have been lost as a result.

       0 likes

  9. James Morrison says:

    The BBC always recognise the scandals that come with the clintons 9whitewater, lewinsky etc). Theres never any attempt to somehow portray them as squeaky clean.

       0 likes

  10. mailman says:

    James,

    In action breeds contempt. Had Clinton acted decisively we most likely wouldnt have had the problems we have today with terrorism.

    Same for Carter, had he crushed Iran when he had the chance we wouldnt have the scum in Hamas and hisbullah running around doing Irans dirty work.

    Mailman

       0 likes

  11. DEJ says:

    Mailman:
    Absolutely agree. This is why it is so important that Israel succeeds despite the efforts of the bBC.

       0 likes

  12. James Morrison says:

    mailman

    so, in other words, you are saying that Clinton is responsible for september 11th?

       0 likes

  13. ipreferred says:

    He’s also responsible for global warming, that tsunami and that whiny contestant getting voted off of X-Factor.

       0 likes

  14. Nick says:

    The actions of Presidents surely have repercussions. Go ahead and argue about who did what to whom. But the original post concerns the different treatment of Bush and Clinton by the BBC, which is crystal clear and has been for years. Even if you think Clinton is great and Bush is an idiot, you can see that?

       0 likes

  15. Anonymous says:

    James Morrison | 12.01.09 – 12:11 pm |

    Clinton’s ‘limp’ response to the 1993 WTC attack did not result in a war, coming at a huge cost to innocent life in Iraq and Afghanistan,

    tell that to the people in Rwanda.

       0 likes

  16. James Morrison says:

    Well I agree that the BBC (and well, all the media) look for stories that support the argument ‘Bush is a thicko’. Yes thats not in doubt. But remember, Bush is partly to blame. Not just for his gaffes, which we all make, but because he went so far to portray himself as an ‘everyman Texan, an average joe, who thinks with gut’. When hes none of these things. He’s a North Eastern elite just like the rest of them, the Texan thing is an act to help him connect with the conservative masses/independent voters who think that ‘a regular guy’ is the right person to run the country. Bush opened the can of worms, and the media exploit it. And no, i don’t think hes stupid or dumb or any of that. He’s been a bad president, but that because of his misguided policies, not his supposed lack of intellect.

       0 likes

  17. James Morrison says:

    What does clintons response to the WTC have to do with Rwanda? Nothing.

       0 likes

  18. Anonymous says:

    James Morrison | 12.01.09 – 12:56 pm |

    well it shows that doing nothing is not a good option.

       0 likes

  19. James Morrison says:

    The original point was that clinton didnt respond to the the 93 attack, which somehow (apparently) led to the 01 attack. What similarity to the situation does Rwanda have? They never attacked the US. The US didnt get involved cos it didnt affect American lives. the same way that Bush hasnt got involved in Darfur or Zimbabwe.

    and you cannot say ‘doing nothing is not a good option’. each scenario is different.

       0 likes

  20. Anonymous says:

    James Morrison:
    mailman

    so, in other words, you are saying that Clinton is responsible for september 11th?
    James Morrison | 12.01.09 – 12:21 pm | #

    You got it!!

       0 likes

  21. Anonymous says:

    and you cannot say ‘doing nothing is not a good option’. each scenario is different.
    James Morrison | 12.01.09 – 1:04 pm |

    and when every scenario ends in clinton doing zilch…

       0 likes

  22. mailman says:

    “James Morrison:
    mailman

    so, in other words, you are saying that Clinton is responsible for september 11th?”

    Well apparently 9/11 is GW’s fault! 🙂

    Then again, Clinton had the chance to nail Osama and what did he do? Ask for another box of cigars and a new intern!

    Mailman

       0 likes

  23. Anonymous says:

    The original point was that clinton didnt respond to the the 93 attack, which somehow (apparently) led to the 01 attack. What similarity to the situation does Rwanda have?
    James Morrison | 12.01.09 – 1:04 pm |

    like i said,the act of doing nothing.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda

       0 likes

  24. Deborah says:

    Is James Morrison the same as Hillhunt? I certainly treat them the same – ie scroll down beyond their comments.

       0 likes

  25. Anonymous says:

    Well I agree that the BBC (and well, all the media) look for stories that support the argument ‘Bush is a thicko’. Yes thats not in doubt.
    James Morrison | 12.01.09 – 12:55 pm |

    george w bush president of u.s.a for two whole terms.
    james morrison sometime blogger and general nobody.

       0 likes

  26. Martin says:

    James Morrison: Yes Clinton is responsible for 9/11. It was his 8 years that allowed Bin Laden to grow his power base. All of the planning for 9/11 happened under the Clinton administration. Clinton also had the chance to kill Bin Laden more than once but refused to allow the US services to do it.

    The Clinton/Gore administration allowed the SUV to be classed as a truck and exempt much of the fuel efficiency legislation that cars have to meet.

    Clinton was probably the worst President in recent times. The fact he was humping young women in the Oval office and cheating on his wife is also quite important in my view.

       0 likes

  27. Joe says:

    Hi David,

    I have to admit that I found the BBC article rather funny!. And if I compare the two links, then yes it does strike me as biased.

    I think that on this occasion we should wait until after Obama has taken over the presidency before judging the BBC, the Clinton article was written after he left office (I think), so the BBC still have time to redeem themselves.

       0 likes

  28. disillusioned_german says:

    Joe | 12.01.09 – 1:46 pm |

    Are you seriously saying that you expect anything other than an “Obama Lovefest” from Al Beeb???

    We’ll see what they have to say when Obama’s being replaced by a Republican in four years time.

       0 likes

  29. Anonymous says:

    The beeb forgot about this

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/

       0 likes

  30. Blobby says:

    Joe, I think the BBC could only redeem themselves by doing the following:

    i) confess to prior biased reporting on just about everything and pledge to ensure that such propagandising will stop forthwith,

    ii) follow that up by sacking reporters who demonstrate unprofessional partiality in their work,

    iii) announce that the BBC no longer wishes to be funded by a mandatory and unjustifiable tax.

       0 likes

  31. Peter says:

    Martin | 12.01.09 – 1:38 pm | #

    …The fact he was ‘not having sexual relations’ [sick] with young women in the Oval office

    I always wondered what the effect of this, plus his subsequent, and many weasels to get out of it went, if you’ll forgive the allusion, down around the world.

    I don’t think those who like blowing things and people up really care one way or the other, but if you are selling world leadership to a bunch of more conservative folk, the message sent out about the leader of the free world was… unfortunate. IMHO.

    And not that ‘honour’ is exactly the word I’d use around any of what most have been getting up to for a while now, in macho, mano-a-mano cultures I do wonder how standing off and lobbing a few cruise missiles in the vague direction of the bad guys was perceived.

    Especially when I think they missed everyone but some innocents.

    However, as it was Slick-Willy (Dem) then, there seem some in a more forgiving, or forgetful frame of mind in some quarters now.

       0 likes

  32. Random says:

    It’s all in the presentation. If you actually read into the page, you find that even the BBC cannot find anything that Clinton could call an achievement apart from the debatable intervention in Kosova. The next best is the peace agreement between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis. Yes …

    The presentation is so positive for Clinton, though, and so negative for Bush. Bush who actually allowed elected government to populations of more than 50 million people. His method was controversial, but it is an achievement beyond anything Clinton managed.

       0 likes

  33. lucklucky says:

    People need to realise that Media is not here to inform anyone. It is here to make politics without the cons of politics.

    Journalism was born to allow reporters stopping informing and starting narrating, manipulating, and preaching. Todays journalistas are the new Social Priests. They are always looking out to issue condemnation.

    Oh i forgot chances of that journalist behavior increase if those that make it have some sort of link to Western world and have a light skin.
    Fidel Castro smoking a Cigar is a testimony of character, anyone else is a sin.

       0 likes

  34. Joe N. says:

    What I found rather cute in the R4 documentary, was the way it tried to be reasonable, but resorted to “mockumentary” tacktics anyway.

    They had a voice-actor imitating President Bush at each segment, and when they played a series of quotations by him, the background music was of rural banjo fuges, as though it meant to cue the pavlov’s dogs of the listening audience a seeming reference to the movie “deliverance”.

    The arrogant, culturally ignorant bastards at the BBC don’t even realize that there is no such tradition in Texas, and that he doesn’t comre from the Appalachian or mountain-south traditions associated with the type of fade-in/fade-out music they played.

    Really – they are idiots willing to employ what they think they know about a folk culture to abuse someone! It’s about as sophisticated and shows as much a lack of depth of familiarity as a would-be photo-montage of Barack Obama with a watermelon and a bucket of fried chicken.

       0 likes

  35. Cameron says:

    just watched the 45 minute speech by bush.#
    The beeboids were almost heaping praise on him. But thats because he didnt criticise “the one”

       0 likes

  36. Tom says:

    Blobby | 12.01.09 – 2:02 pm

    Does anybody know of any occasion in the past 25 years when the BBC has taken disciplinary action against one of its employees for a breach of impartiality?

    It seems hardly credible that they think they have been 100% perfect.

       0 likes

  37. Joe says:

    Plett springd to mind, cannot remember anyone esle.

       0 likes

  38. Tom ROLLison says:

    Cameron:

    so even when the BBC praise Bush, then that shows the bias? you cannot criticise them for being anti-Bush, then when you see a pro-Bush piece you still call them biased! and you blame it on obama??

       0 likes

  39. amimissingsomething says:

    Anonymous | 12.01.09 – 1:24 pm | #

    looks like

    clinton (irrefutably) lied
    and people died

    perhaps ‘clinton’ has too many syllables compared to ‘bush’ for that mantra to catch on

       0 likes

  40. Robert says:

    Tom R.: you don’t get it do you? Cameron is amazed at what he saw as a non-aggressively anti-Bush presentation precisely because it’s so startlingly rare in BBC-land – just as if we’d witnessed a positive presentation of: Ariel Sharon (or anything to do with Israel), Margaret Thatcher (or anything to do with the Conservatives), Ian Paisley (ditto Unionists), Silvio Berlusconi… getting the picture yet?

       0 likes

  41. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Two shots of Clinton brokering an historic – but utterly pointless and meaningless – peace agreement between Israel and Arafat. But no mention of that, or how many hundreds of millions Arafat pocketed as a result, except to remind us how much Clinton really, really, wanted peace.

       0 likes

  42. Natalie Solent says:

    Joe N, I’ve mentioned your comment of 3.09 pm in a new post.

       0 likes

  43. Sam Duncan says:

    JM: I’m not here to defend GWB, or especially to attack Clinton (GHWB was little – if any – better): the point here is bias, and the fact is that all we are ever presented of Bush are his failings, while Clinton’s serious errors are given less prominence than his sexual misadventures.

    His inaction – and inept action in Bosnia/Kosovo – may not have “caused” 9/11, but they sure as hell didn’t help.

    The UN arms embargo in the former Yugoslavia, interpreted by radical Muslims as a denial of their right to self-defence (in their eyes, deliberate), and its consequences were responsible for more radicalisation of impressionable Muslims during the 1990s than anything else. And the US – seen by them, rightly or wrongly, as the puppet master of the UN – was blamed. Effigies of Clinton were burned and trampled throughout the Middle East during his presidency. The “Hamburg Cell” that nurtured the 9/11 attackers was steeped in Bosnia/Kosovo lore. Clinton’s air strikes on Serbia meant little to these radicals and, yes, killed innocent civilians.

    These are simple, objective facts. None of them necessarily makes Clinton a “bad” president; all presidents make errors of judgement. But they should feature prominently in any impartial assessment of the Clinton administration. Giving them less prominence than sexual scandals not only suggests bias, but hampers understanding of the entire issue of radical Islam as it affects the West. As, of course, does the characterisation of Bush as a bumbling fool.

    The BBC is supposed to be in the business of promoting understanding.

       0 likes

  44. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Sam Duncan,

    His inaction – and inept action in Bosnia/Kosovo – may not have “caused” 9/11, but they sure as hell didn’t help.

    You’re right. But Clinton’s failure to let Sudan hand Bin Laden over to the US, and subsequent bombing of Bin Laden’s group in the Sudan, actually did lead to 9/11. You won’t hear that from the BBC, though. Many Beeboids wanted his wife in the White House, before their Obamessiah came into the picture.

       0 likes

  45. cassis says:

    BBC – are you going to treat Obama as you treated Bush. Fairly?

    That is:

    First, demonize him and ascribe his motives to evil and malfeasance, not just policy differences.

    And then you should proclaim often and loudly that he is not the president, that he stole the election and he has no mandate.

    You should repeat false stories about him, no matter how crazy or wrong, until they are accepted as common wisdom.

    You should create lies and urban legends to smear him and demean him.

    You should ridicule any verbal slips or gaffes, and ascribe them to his native stupidity and intellectual vapidity.

    You should accuse him of every sin and crime under the sun and attempt to have him impeached for policy differences, which we should call crimes.

    You should undermine any programs he wants to pass by misstating their goals and content.

    You should take quotes out of context to make him seem ridiculous and to make him seem mean-spirited.

    You should repeat often that he doesn’t care about people who aren’t the same race as he is, and that he is only out for his own kind.

    You should claim that he is going to try to force a coup and take over the country by force.

    You should claim he’s going to lock up any dissenters.

    You should loudly scream about losing our rights and interfere with his speechs and disrupt any gatherings of his party.

    Politicians should cynically misstate his policies to make him look bad.`

    Pinched from somewhere…

       0 likes

  46. Snooze 24 says:

    Any chance of a livechat on the inauguration? The liberal love will be coming thick and fast from the BBC that day (they even have “Obama – His Story”; bet that’ll omit a few things) and it’d be good to have a place to highlight it

       0 likes

  47. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    Slightly OT but did you see who our other publicly funded broadcaster, Channel 4, chose to deliver the final word tonight on George Bush (at great length)……George bloody Galloway.

    Maybe when Obama finally bows out – they’ll give a 15 minute spot to Nick Griffin.

    Remind me how Maggie was persuaded we needed a second bunch of student lefties suckling at the public teat – I’ve never understood that.

       0 likes

  48. Garden Trash says:

    “The liberal love will be coming thick and fast from the BBC that day (they even have “Obama – His Story”; bet that’ll omit a few things) and it’d be good to have a place to highlight it”

    This will never happen,why? Because Obama has no history,has left no paper trail,no friends,colleagues or fellow students have come forward with anecdotes of his past.All that there is to go on is is what Obama himself wrote in his autobiographies.
    Chilling really.

       0 likes

  49. GCooper says:

    Garden Trash writes: “Chilling really.”

    It’s more than chilling, it’s actually quite sinister and the fact that the BBC has refused to examine Obama’s Stalinist purge on his life story is just as chilling in its own way.

       0 likes

  50. Garden Trash says:

    GCooper,
    It is amazing, that the members of the MSM who can create a story out of “nanny’s wages”,casual remarks by a young prince and all kinds of irrelevant dross which fuels our news media,yet for some strange reason nobody has found it odd the with Obama,there is nothing there to report.
    I know for an absolute fact that airbrushing history is amazingly difficult in this day and age of universal internet access.In the future,with reunion sites and Facebook,there will always be something on everyone in First World countries.

       0 likes