British hostages in Iran are...Bush's fault?

Man, isn't there anything that this man isn't responsible for these days? From the Limeys:

But Britain's delicate diplomatic efforts were set back by U.S. President George W. Bush, who made a statement Saturday in which he characterized the imprisoned sailors as "hostages" - a phrase that Britain has been carefully avoiding to prevent the crisis from becoming a broader political or military conflict.

Bush calls the hostages "hostages", and that just ticked off what had heretofore been a passive, non-hostile, and reasonable Iran, right?

So Bush was awful to refer to the hostages as "hostages". Got it. Then could someone please explain how this appeared in the exact same article?

British negotiators believe the Iranians have already won all the rewards they have been seeking - mainly by using several of the hostages for propaganda purposes by broadcasting videos and letters in which they admit, possibly under duress, to trespassing on Iranian territory and demand that their government withdraw from Iraq.

In other words, Bush is a bad guy for using the exact same terminology that the newspaper used to describe the hostages? Do these guys even have editors at this fishwrap?