“Now please read post #20 on this thread, in it there is a quote where quidnunc clearly states that he was on a personal crusade against British posters here on FR, due entirely to his preconceived anti-British bias.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First as I have repeated several times, motivation is none of your business. The articles are. Nevertheless addressing you obsession with his reasons, as I read it quidnunc said he was tired of Brit Bush bashing and would make it his business to expose this trait. And he has done so. On FR that strikes me as a perfectly legitimate motivation. Any other reading of his post, or ludicrous speculation which I have read on FR (ie: a British woman dumped him) as to his ‘real’ motives is a distortion of what he said and none of your business.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“Firstly, I despise the BBC and would like to see them disbanded. Secondly, there are also plenty of leftist news sources in the USA attacking the Bush administration, so you should hardly be surprised that the leftist media in European countries is also attacking it.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am glad to hear that you personally “despise the BBC.” However your anti-Americanism was never questioned. Unlike the personal attacks you have directed at quid, he posted articles which referred to the British public not you. As I suggested earlier, to the extent that you disagree with anti-Americanism in the UK, I am very glad that you make your opinions known.
As to the comparison of the BBC to US left media, the BBC is not the same on several fronts. The BBC is a state funded media and the main source of broadcast news in UK. It is not in general on the left so its anti-US position can not be explained that way. I explain it as being very Arabist. Also, the BBC is shown internationally which makes its impact quite serious.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“The Conservative Party did sell out the US." dervish
"No it didn't." David Hunter
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“In February 2004, Howard called on Tony Blair to resign over the Iraq war, because he had failed to ask "basic questions" regarding WMD claims and misleading the Parliament. (*) In July the Tory leader stated that he would not have voted for the motion that authorised the Iraq war had he known the quality of intelligence information which the WMD claims were based on. At the same time, he said he still believed in the Iraq invasion was right because "the prize of a stable Iraq was worth striving for". (*) His criticism of Blair did not earn Howard sympathies in Washington, where President Bush refused to meet him; Karl Rove is reported to have told Howard: "You can forget about meeting the president full stop. Don't bother coming."
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Mi/Michael_Howard.htm
So do you disagree with this account?
“Michael Howard deepened his feud with the White House yesterday when he pointedly refused to offer the traditional post-election congratulations to George Bush.
Angered by a White House edict banning him from meeting the president - as punishment for criticising Tony Blair over Iraq - Mr Howard said it would be wrong for him to express any view on the poll.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph the arch-Atlanticist was asked whether he was pleased that a fellow rightwinger had beaten a liberal. He said: "I made it clear that I could work perfectly well with both President Bush and President Kerry ... I don't think it's appropriate to express a view on those elections."
Mr Howard's remarks may appear bland. But in the language of diplomacy they amount to a rebuke to Mr Bush - and in particular to his polling guru, Karl Rove, who told him he would not be welcome at the White House after he criticised Mr Blair's use of intelligence before the Iraq war.
Mr Rove was reported by the Sun as telling Howard aides: "You can forget about him meeting the president. Don't bother coming."
In his interview Mr Howard hit back at Mr Rove, who is widely credited with masterminding President Bush's decisive victory. Criticising the White House for being "very protective" of Mr Blair, he added: "I am not going to be told by anyone how to do my job and if it displeases those in the White House, that's tough."
Mr Howard's decision to distance himself from the White House reflects his belief that Mr Bush is so unpopular in Britain that voters will be impressed by a politician who stands up to him. This has created a unprecedented situation in which a Labour prime minister will be feted at the White House while a Tory leader is cold-shouldered.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1345806,00.html
And that one?
Let's get this straight -
1. You again think it's perfectly OK for someone with a proven vendetta to slime America's principal ally. You really think it's OK for someone to perpetrate smears? Fortunately, I can say, that apparently the owners of this site do not agree with your perspective.
2. I posted what Michael Howard actually said - not the Guardian's interpretation of what he said. You actually trust what the left-wing Guardian (which has its own agenda) says over the complete words from the horses' mouth?
This is so totally barmy, I am at a loss as to how to tell you how ridiculous it is. I have answered your allegations, I've posted facts - it is simply not my fault that you will go to any apparent length to ignore them. It is precisely this kind of irrational behaviour to which David and I have objected, and which you insist on persisting in.
Ivan
Actually, he did not focus on Bush bashing, he also said: 'our country, our culture and pretty much all things American in general.' In other words, while he was on a British forum he had been flamed by some anti-American toerags and he had taken it to heart. Now I have been on this forum for over 3 years and I have been flamed by many anglophobes and Brit bashers and been called "limey" more times than I can remember, however, I have not gone to a British forum and spent my time encouraging anti-American sentiment - but quidnunc did the equivalent of that.
However your anti-Americanism was never questioned.
Are you accusing me of being anti-American?
As to the comparison of the BBC to US left media, the BBC is not the same on several fronts. The BBC is a state funded media and the main source of broadcast news in UK. It is not in general on the left so its anti-US position can not be explained that way. I explain it as being very Arabist.
The BBC are leftist, people in Britain understand this, BBC reporting is almost always biased against the Torie party.
His criticism of Blair did not earn Howard sympathies in Washington, where President Bush refused to meet him; Karl Rove is reported to have told Howard: "You can forget about meeting the president full stop. Don't bother coming."
Criticising the White House for being "very protective" of Mr Blair, he added: "I am not going to be told by anyone how to do my job and if it displeases those in the White House, that's tough."
Obviously, Bush and Rove were angry that Howard had attacked Blair about the way he justified the Iraq war and they wanted to punish him. When this disagreement became public, Howard could hardly have capitulated because that would be tantamount to allowing a foreign government to dictate policy to Britain's official opposition party. Even if all this had transpired the way we are led to believe it did, then it hardly means that the Conservative party sold out the US. Especially when you consider that Howard mantained all the way through the general election campaign that if he had been prime minister he would have invaded Iraq because he agreed with the US "regime change" policy, even if there was no intelligence suggesting Iraq had WMD.
<< First as I have repeated several times, motivation is none of your business. The articles are. Nevertheless addressing your obsession with his reasons, as I read it quidnunc said he was tired of Brit Bush bashing and would make it his business to expose this trait. And he has done so. >>
And that, insofar as quidnunc’s "british-oriented" posts are concerned is all he has ever done.
On the other hand, the parasitical personal-attack pack -- to which most of FR's universally-FReeloading, lurking, layabout, lumpem, Limey larakins have attached themselves -- relentlessly, gutlessly -- and in typical once-great-british bovver-booted bully-boy manner -- hyena-like pack-hunts and attacks any who dares call the once-great british media, politicians and unwashed masses on their overwhelming anti-Americanism.
Including and perhaps especially quidnunc.