As a Congress committee allegedly prepares to criticise the CIA over WMDs in Iraq,
‘BBC state department correspondent Jon Leyne says the committee report is a clear attempt by the Republicans to shift blame from the White House and on to the intelligence community. ‘
The BBC rolls out a correspondent and shows a certainty that I’ve rarely come across in one of its reports. Where were they when Mahathir was mouthing off?
This Jon Leyne bloke is certainly a star catch for the BBC. He’s apparently able to see beyond the bleeding obvious and straight into the hearts of indeterminate numbers of people:
Thousands join US anti-war march
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3214081.stm
“The march was thought to be smaller than the mass demonstrations before and during the war.
But the BBC’s Jon Leyne, who was at the Washington rally, said it was probably more in tune with the mood of Americans, who are increasingly concerned at the president’s policy in Iraq.”
So, the observed fact is that “Americans” stayed away from the “anti-war” protests in even greater numbers than they stayed away previously; and the conclusion is that this increased absence reflects an increased concern about US administration policy.
Pretty amazing powers of, er, ‘deduction’.
Ooh, note that while we are informed of the names of the groups that organised the “anti-war” protests, when it comes to the counter demonstration we need to be told the additional information that the organising group was “conservative”.
And will someone please tell the left-wing BBC that they should use a capital ‘P’ when specifically referring to a president, head of state, of a sovereign nation.
I was suprised that the protest was even front page news, well it’s the BBC I guess I shouldn’t have been. It isn’t even front page of the Washington Post. (It happened in Washington)
PJF write’s:
“The march was thought to be smaller than the mass demonstrations before and during the war.”
I never found any indication within the BBC broadcasting, about the numbers of attendents being heavilly inflated by the organisers of the protests, as a professional attendant to several of these “events” i found that the numbers mentioned in the press and specifically in the BBC reporting to be copied straight from the press-releases of the organisers, while my own observations as a non-partisan attendent strongly lead me to believe that the attendence was at most a third of the number stated in those press-releases.
Here are som picture’s of the recent Washington “Anti war protests” courtesy of the belligerent bunny.
http://petbunny.blogspot.com/
PJF also wrote:
“And will someone please tell the left-wing BBC that they should use a capital ‘P’ when specifically referring to a president, head of state, of a sovereign nation.”
Notice that ( democratically elected chairman , my a**) Yasser Arafat is always refered to using the capital letter in his “official” designation.
Speaking of twatty protestors: I was watching coverage of an anti-war march in London before the war, and they were all marching with banners bearing the slogan “Not in my name.” It seems kind of hypocritical then, that when a lone “protester” came along with a banner supporting the war, a group of anti-war knobs wrestled his sign from him and smashed it up on the ground. Apparently it’s wrong that Tony Blair should do things they disagree with “in their name,” but the same doesn’t apply when they go around protesting and claiming to speak for all of Britain. (In fact, the majority of the British public supported the war.)
I heard the report and “interview with an aggrieved lefty” on BBC world service, and they nicely made a point of repeating the guy’s claim that more people showed up to their little affair than did before the war.
I live in DC, I saw the crowd, and I can tell you that he lied. Less than 5000 people were there. The reporter was there, must have obviously seen it, and didn’t call the guy on his claim.
Not only was the protester pimping his hatred, but used the tacit support of the BBC reporter to parrot this tripe to 5 continents.
The crux of the interviewee’s argument was the “US out, UN in, US should pay, but why should I?”
It’s built on one thing: they do not want the Iraqi population to sense any sort of goodwill toward the US because it will undermine a overly simplified and deeply narcissistic view they have of the world. They have reason to be afraid given the common sense and decency that the overwelming majority of Iraq is showing.
They also don’t care how many Iraqi lives it will cost to support their rigid world view.