Is the Independent suffering from myopia about its own content?

There is little more ironic than watching left wing bloggers and writers moan about newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Sun playing loose and fast with the facts whilst they seemingly ignore the same things in the "quality" papers they read.

Take for example the cartoon in this morning's Independent (pictured). It is essentially pushing the line that John McCain is just a George Bush clone. A vote for McCain is thus a vote for the same failed neocon policies of Bush. What short memories the Independent's editors must have of their own reporting to actually think that such a line of criticism can stand up to scrutiny.

A quick look through the Independent's archive shows, in May 2002 Rupert Cornwall reported upon how Bush came under attack from Lieberman (Democrat) and McCain in the Senate for his response to the terrorist threat.

Then in July 2002, Cornwall reports on how Senator McCain clashed with Bush on party finances. Or let's look at December 2003 when the Indy reported that Bush and America were at "war on nature" but also noted how,

In July this year, EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] scientists leaked a study, which the agency had ordered suppressed in May, showing that a Senate plan ­ co-sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain ­ to reduce the pollution that causes global warming could achieve its goal at very small cost. Bush reacted by launching a $100m 10-year effort to prove that global temperature changes have, in fact, occurred naturally ­ another delay tactic for the fossil-fuel barons.

So here we have McCain going head to head with Bush over the issue of whether Kyoto and emmission reduction plans would be expensive or not. Clearly the bastard child of Dubya isn't he? How about in March 2004 when it was reported that John Kerry and McCain were great friends, and that

After their fierce 2000 primary battle, there is no love lost between the President and Mr McCain. Since Mr Bush took office, Mr McCain opposed the more extravagant of Mr Bush's tax cuts and sponsored a campaign finance reform bill which had been long resisted by the White House.

Jump forward a few months in 2004 and we have the Indy reporting a split in the Republicans led by McCain against Bush's budget proposal. With McCain saying Bush has abandoned fiscal responsibility with the budget. Isn't it oh so clear how alike McCain and Bush are? Separated at birth without a doubt given how much they agree huh?

Then in Septemeber 2006, the Independent reported, once again by Rupert Cornwall, that McCain led the criticism of Bush, and rubbished Bush's defence of power for the CIA to use would were quaintly caleld "agressive interrogation techniques".

Of course, I'm not suggesting that there are not some areas of agreements between the two men, but what is clear from the reporting by the Independent is that John McCain has been the most high-profile Republican rebel against the Bush Administration in the past eight years.

Clearly the Independent is suffering from myopia about what they've put on record in past. That can be the only explanation given that their past reporting completely disputes and discredits their current editorial line. Can't it?