BBC North America editor Mark Mardell is in a dark place these days. After his beloved Obamessiah turned out to be a cold-blooded assassin, he doesn’t know which way to turn. He’s tried blaming ugly United Statesians for forcing the President to kill because it plays well at home, refusing to call out the President Himself. Mardell never made much of a fuss about the fact that the current President has sent unmanned drones to kill far more people in Pakistan than the previous White House occupant did, so it’s not surprising that this particular targeted assassination has shaken his faith so badly. To their credit, the BBC has reported this elsewhere, but it’s remarkable that Mardell doesn’t seem to make the connection.
In his latest post, Mardell misrepresents reality to sing His praises for one last time.
From the very start of his presidency, Mr Obama’s administration has made it clear there is no such thing as an Afghan strategy. First it was an Af-Pak strategy. Then it became Pak-Af. Whatever you call it, there is an acknowledgement that Pakistan may be the more important country in the fight against al-Qaeda. Everyone in the know believes some members of the government and particularly the intelligence service are hand-in-glove with the jihadists and must have known what Bin Laden was up to.
This implies that Bush’s focus on Afghanistan was wrong and that he somehow neglected Pakistan. In fact, the only reason Al Qaeda had such a presence in Pakistan was because they had been largely forced out of Afghanistan by Coalition forces during the last several years of fighting. Even the BBC has admitted that in the past. Yet Mardell wants you to think that only The Obamessiah understood that Pakistan was a problem. Why would Bush have been sending drone attacks into the tribal areas if he didn’t also have an Af-Pak strategy of some kind?
In any case, Mardell’s crisis of faith continues. In fact, it’s getting so bad now that I think I’m nearly ready to stop with this “Obamessiah” business because I think Mardell and his colleagues are nearly done with their blind worship of Him. Mardell himself reveals why.
After talking about the problem of squaring the huge amount of cash and support we give to Pakistan with the fact that there’s clearly a major faction (at least) there who are in league with the enemy, he says this:
While this debate will go on, the Mr Obama doesn’t have to worry about some of the concerns expressed in the rest of the world about the legality or morality of killing Bin Laden. It has hardly been raised by anyone here in the US, and the president has said that anyone who questions taking the al-Qaeda leader out “needs their heads examined”.
Mardell questioned it and denegrated the US public over it in his last post, so this means that the President is actually saying that he, too, needs his head examined. The BBC North America editor must be questioning his faith now. What to do? We’ll see how he handles it.
Im looking to Barry becoming a one term failed President even worse than Jimmeh. Why I imagine Mardell will probably go sideways, or something! 🙂
On that happy note I bid you good night 🙂
Regards
Mailman
Mark Mardel (And a few bBC defence and security experts) could do with reading this I found:
Pakistan continues to deny, at least publically, that it knew Osama bin Laden was hiding out in a military town (Abbottabad), surrounded by retired generals and less than a kilometer from the national military academy. But the U.S. believed that senior people in the Pakistani military, and its intel organization (ISI), knew. American officials are accusing Pakistani officials that they were either in on the bin Laden sanctuary deal, or were incompetent. Which is why Pakistan was given no advance warning of the raid. But even that is unclear, raising the possibility that some trusted Pakistani military leaders may have been alerted. The Pakistanis were apparently informed once the raid was underway, and Pakistani troops assisted by cordoning off the bin Laden compound, and taking possession after the Americans left (less than an hour after they arrived.)
Increasingly, over the past few years, the U.S. has presented the Pakistani government with clear evidence of how the Pakistani army and intel services were playing both sides. Pakistan either denied the evidence or promised something would be done, but did nothing (or very little.) After the raid, the Pakistani military announced that they are investigating the bin Laden situation, but there is little confidence that anything (beyond more lies and deception) will come from that. The U.S. is pressuring Pakistan to actively help determine the extent of pro-terrorist activity in the ISI and army. So far, Pakistan has resisted this, probably because the ISI is seen as the holder of many secrets, including some that could be embarrassing (or worse) to Pakistani politicians trying to investigate the ISI.
The situation gets worse for the Pakistani generals. Since the bin Laden raid, more Wikileaks documents have come out, showing captured al Qaeda claiming that ISI and Pakistani troops supported Islamic terrorists in India and helped them get across the border into Kashmir so that they could “kill Indians”. Pakistan has always denied this, although the evidence against Pakistan has grown year by year since the 1990s.
There is no hard evidence that the Pakistanis were complicit in hiding bin Laden in a suburb of their capital. But there is considerable evidence that some military personnel and organizations were in on it. What is certain about the Pakistani military is that they are very corrupt, not very effective (they have lost every war they participated in) and consider themselves a caste apart in Pakistan. The military considers themselves the only disciplined organization in an otherwise chaotic nation. That’s why the military periodically takes over, then lets democracy resume control after 5-10 years (once the generals are minded that running a dictatorship in Pakistan is very difficult). But the failure to even detect the American raiders, much less interfere with the raid, has enraged many Pakistanis. It’s not just the Americans who want answers.
The Pakistani military justifies its huge budget and immunity from most laws, by portraying India as a huge threat and always scheming to invade or grab another piece of Pakistani territory. This has been going on since the two countries were created in 1948, and there was a dispute (still unresolved) over who should control the border province of Kashmir. The Pakistani military has shown itself more successful at taking a large part of the national income for itself, than in taking Kashmir from India. The main goal of the Pakistani military is taking care of itself. Pakistani officers live very well, as the military owns many companies and other income producing assets. A large chunk of the $18 billion in American aid (sent to Pakistan since September 11, 2001) had has been stolen by Pakistani officers. The Pakistani military is greedy, unreliable, duplicitous and incompetent. They will apply all these skills in an attempt to absolve themselves of any blame in the bin Laden affair. Meanwhile, the political establishment, which shares many of the same qualities, continues to demonstrate a chronic inability to control the military. Both the politicians and generals foster conspiracy theories about how India and the West are striving to cripple Pakistan, to prevent the emergence of a mighty Islamic power. Many Pakistanis are aware that what is crippling Pakistan is corrupt and incompetent leadership within Pakistan. But life is hard in Pakistan, and it’s easier to just go along with the lies, or immigrate to the West.
The Pakistani military is threatening to withdraw cooperation if the U.S. makes anymore raids, like the one that killed Osama bin Laden recently. The U.S. says nothing in response to this, but American diplomats have pointed out to their Pakistani counterparts that the American Congress, which controls American spending, is talking about cutting, or eliminating all aid to Pakistan. The U.S. Department of Defense has admitted that it has prepared plans for dealing with a hostile Pakistan. Many Pakistanis are upset that the Americans were able to fly, undetected, through 200 kilometers of Pakistani territory, raid a compound and get away with bin Laden’s body, and no casualties among themselves.
Taken from here
We’ll find out soon enough just who in Pakistan was helping Bin Laden once the CIA goes through all that intel captured from his million dollar rat’s nest. But the idea that only The Obamessiah would deal with Pakistan was a White House talking point. Al Qaeda and Taliban heavies were already shifting there by the end of Bush’s term, so anyone who became President in 2008 would naturally be shifting focus around then as well.
I wonder if the bBC will start to mention this at the start of every report from Pakistan:
Apparently reacting to negative broadcast news accounts questioning Pakistan’s baffling role in the hunting down of Osama bin Laden, the government has ordered nine international news channels, including CNN, Fox News, and the BBC to halt what it said are “illegal” broadcasts from Abbottabad, the town where bin Laden had holed up for several years before he was killed during a Navy SEAL raid earlier this month. Britain’s Guardian newspaper said that those channels have been notified that they may not continue to broadcast from any part of the country without obtaining a license. Such a restriction, said the Guardian , is “a previously unknown requirement. Moreover, it observed, authorities are taking measures to prevent other journalists from entering Pakistan.
I love the “everyone in the know ” bit. I suppose that includes Marky boy. What a prat !
It is so typical of the Beeboid mindset; that the best thing Obama has done as president is the one thing that they don’t like about him.
Perhaps some of you military/legal types can fill me in here?
What is the normal procedure for disposing of the body of a dead enemy combatant? I presume he is not left to stink the place up but are any funeral rites conducted?
What about a criminal killed during capture? Would he be buried with funeral rites?
“Did Naval Burial Ceremony for Bin Laden Curse Jews and Christians, and Confer Pardon and Paradise on the Muslim Mass Murderer?”
(by Andrew Bostom)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9457/pub_detail.asp
oh no
this crisis if faith will mean poor Mark will start binge eating and let his on screen appearance go completely to the toilet and he’ll start talking utter bollocks to the viewer
oh no,wait………..
Itwf,
I have posted before, but don’t they have any soap and running water in the USA ?
he’s a bit of a soap dodger by the looks of it
and he must get dressed in the dark as well
Itwf,
If I looked like Mark, I would get dressed and undressed in the dark.
The land of three showers a day! I’ll say they have water, yes.
Got to be honest here?
Which one is Mark Mardell?
is he the smug fat one with lugubrious tones and an innate sense of self satisfaction?…or is that Michael Crick…they all look the same to me!
Them two on a see saw is the BBCs idea of “balance”!
cj,
It really doesn’t matter what they look like, they all think the same way.
Mardell condenses more negative commentary into this one blogpost about Newt Gingrich than you’ll find in a year’s worth of Obama pieces.
I got the distinct impression he doesn’t like him very much tbh
Actually, I’m with Mardell on this one. I can’t stand Gingrich for pretty much all those reasons he lists. Although an article which isn’t meant to demonize a politician would have more of a balance of positive and negative, and without a disclaimer on the one positive asset offered.
He’s also a bit of a darling among the more Christian end of the Tea Party movement. I don’t know if he’ll be much of a successful candidate, but he can bring some high-powered support to another viable candidate if he wants.
I’m not a Gingrinch fan either – my point concerned the ease with which criticism flows when the subject is a Republican and not Obama.
When one’s knowledge is more dependent on what gets shared by proxy as is the case with overseas news, whether or not the subject portrayed in the negative or not, and especially to the personal standards of so-called ‘reporters’, is a line that needs careful navigating if the intention is to inform rather than simply seeking to re-educate.