From: "Heather Glaisyer" <heather-AT-teknopunx.co.uk>
Subject: Fw: MT vs Dubya
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:32:41 -0000



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fisheye" <fisheye-AT-ukonline.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: MT vs Dubya


> Uh oh, Marks in trouble!!!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020315Mitchell.html
> Bush Team Incensed By Brit Critics
> By Nicola Mitchell
> March 15, 2002 -- LONDON (APJP) -- Last week the freedom of British
> journalists covering the Labour government was called into question.
> 
> In a new twist to the story, it now appears that the American government
> 
> wants to be in on the act and is attempting to silence the opinions of
> its critics in the UK press.
> 
> It's no secret (although the Bush communications team have bent over
> backwards to keep it quiet) that the current administration likes to
> play its cards extremely close to its chest. "Defend and deny" should be
> 
> the Bush team's slogan as they continue to dodge the piles of muck being
> 
> hurled their way over the Afghan war and the Enron debacle.
> 
> But it now appears that all those months spent ducking and diving
> punches from the press have become too much and they are now on the
> offensive in a big way.
> 
> Evidence of the administration's attempts to control the news has been
> apparent for a while now. Fair enough: every government wants to control
> 
> its image, but then again there are not many governments who have lead
> their country into a war against terrorism. Sooner or later they will
> have to face facts -- people want to know the score.
> 
> On the one hand, maybe the Bush team could be forgiven for wanting to
> control the facts, pushing forward lifestyle features about soldiers'
> lives away from home rather than the cold hard facts of combat.
> Controlling people's opinions is another matter entirely -- but as one
> UK magazine has discovered this week, the Bush administration doesn't
> take too kindly to criticism, especially that from us Brits.
> 
> Left-wing UK magazine New Statesman has taken a well-known, perhaps
> somewhat controversial, stance against the war on terror. Up until now,
> its opinions have been tolerated, but it now appears the magazine went
> too far last week when it printed an article by fellow left-wing
> comedian Mark Thomas who offered his total earning from the magazine as
> a bounty for "anyone who can bag George Bush."
> 
> It was an remark typical of the sarcastic UK sense of humour -- but it
> the eyes of the American Embassy, it was a step too far.
> 
> Exasperated by the magazines comments, the US Embassy has since called
> the magazine's editor Peter Wilby, and demanded a full retraction of the
> 
> article. In the spirit of freedom of speech and expression, it is said
> the magazine offered the US Ambassador the chance to write to the
> magazine and express his distaste about the tone of the article, however
> 
> the offer was dutifully dismissed along with a veiled threat that "other
> 
> steps" will now have to be taken.
> 
> So it remains to be seen what the next US move will be.
> 
> I'm just waiting for my phone call, as I'm sure there's a whole list of
> objections to the criticisms I've levelled at Dubya over the past few
> months. I think the Brits are out of favour in general this week as Tony
> 
> Blair, believe it or not, actually dismissed one of Bush's plans, that
> of imposing tariffs on imported steel -- but if the star crossed lovers
> past tempestuous relationship is anything to go by, I'm sure everything
> will be back on track in no time at all.
> --
> 
> --
> 01100110 01101001 01110011 01101000 01100101 01111001 01100101
>          o
>         O
>           O  o
>            o
>           O
>            o
>             <-AT-><
>  Overgrow the Government!
> 
>  There ain't no Sanity Clause.
>