Sometimes I see links on other sites that exaggerate or misstate what
is to be found on the other end on the link.
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/">Huffington
Post
is notorious for this. They come up with sensationalist
titles, then link to articles that may be rather tepid.
That is what I expected when I saw this link on
href="http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org">e Pluribus
Media:
href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1220089.ece">Members
of Parliament from our biggest ally in Bush's war of choice (Britain)
reach a popular consensus: Bush really is Crap 8-18
I mean, would a serious news source really have a title in which they
say that Bush is crap?
This screen capture is from The Independent, a major UK newspaper.
I did not copy the whole thing, so the paragraph at the end
of the first column does not actually lead in to the paragraph at the
top of the second column. But you get the point.
What was the response of the Bush administration?
href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1220073.ece">"Bush
has been called worse things".
Just for some context - I haven't seen the original article, but at least two of the politicians named in your scanned bit would be unlikely to be particularly pro-American even at the best of times. More entertaining is the fact that I think most of the British public, on hearing that our Deputy Prime Minister had used this language (in a private meeting - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4800827.stm for example) thought that it was perhaps the only sensible thing he'd said in about five years.