A short excerpt to whet your appetite:
Later in the programme (8.31) there was an item about why John Kerry’s presidential campaign has gone pear-shaped. The assumption here was that, since no sentient individual could possibly support President Bush, and since therefore it was inconceivable that Kerry would not win the election, there had to be some extraordinary reason why Kerry was mysteriously doing so badly. The fact that he is a rubbish candidate who has demonstrated over and over again his flakiness, inconsistency, flip-floppery, lack of principle and general untrustworthiness was unsayable.
Off Topic – 16 September 2004:
The Silence is deafening over at BBC News – at a time when one of the biggest news events of the year, CBS Memogate, is dramatically unfolding. Suppression of information – it’s a beautiful thing. Increase the Licence fee!
Poor old BBC – their man Kerry is going D-O-W-N and they must be feeling sick about it. Great!
I swear if hear the words “flip-flop” from any more Neo-Cons I’m gonna flip my lid. And what about Bush “flip-flopping” on the assualt weapons ban which he said he would uphold in 2000?
Or do Cons not “flip-flop”?
Melanie Phillips writes almost as much guff as Quentin Letts as far I can see..
You could always “flop” your lid instead.
“Melanie Phillips writes almost as much guff as Quentin Letts as far I can see..”
A classic and witty piece of writing. My word, you should be on the stage.
I have a problem with believing how a sentient being can support Bush…But I also think the same of Kerry. It really trips me out that people can be so polarised over two non-entities who, belief-wise, are the sum total of their largest financial backers.
True American democracy died a long time ago, if it ever did really exist.
Nevertheless, I am going to vote in the election…How lost am I? Now THAT is cynical and hypocritical…Isn’t it? 😉
Just a brief review of American civics: Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) makes the laws, the Executive (President) enforces the laws.
Bush said he’d sign a renewal of the AWB if it came to his desk. It never showed up. Congress did not renew it. If Senator Kerry had wanted it renewed he would have proposed as much in the Senate. Not a peep. Credit where credit is due.
In any event the AWB concentrated on the appearance of weapons rather than function. A bayonet lug makes no difference to the effectiveness of a rifle. The only real effect it had was on the ammunition capacity of magazines.
So the President has no influence over Congress then? And lets be honest, with the NRA putting as much financial weight behind Bush as they have there is no the ban would been renewed. Again the Democrats have missed another open goal..
And to Alan G, quoting Melanie Phillips doesn’t add any credibility to this blog as she clearly has several personal (battle)axes to grind which taints any sort of objective reasoning in her writing. Letts is the same. Political bias is one thing but I don’t think a writer should let their own vendettas influence what they do. Thats what I ment by “guff” anyway.
The AWB was a daft law. However, to suggest that GWB has no influence over congressional Republicans… well, it would be worrying if true, but fortunately very much isn’t.
Kerry didnt reup on the gun law so he could have another talking point for his campaign..
My biggest problem with the BBCWS’s report is that they used the word “removal” when referring to the “assault weapons” ban, when “expiration” would be more accurate.
That, and the presenter’s interview of a Gallup (IIRC) pollster in which the presenter was braying her bias against guns in general.
What a shame Melanie Phillips (and many writers of this blog) only hear what BBC programmes are saying (through their own specific filters of course) rather than actually listening.
Then they just spin what they’ve heard which minces it all up even more.
I have a lot of respect for Melanie, her subsequent entry on global warming is an excellent piece of analysis, but on the subject of the Mike Jackson interview, she was obviously listening to a different Today programme than me. Sad.
As for Rathergate, well it’s just a big non-story Ken.
The BBC’s right to stick to using limited air-time on TV and radio for reporting some real news rather than the backbiting of a bunch of media inbreds across the pond.
It hasn’t actually been completely silent either – check your facts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3662668.stm
“As for Rathergate, well it’s just a big non-story Ken.”
No, it is a very big story. A major network gets taken for a sucker by a “story” of Hitler’s-diary proportions.
However, while Stern magazine and the Sunday Times (plus a red-faced Lord Dacre) had their reputations trashed (like CBS here), in this story the role of that network as an effective political partisan in an election year will possibly have influence on who will be in the Whitehouse for the next four years. Big enough story for you?
“It hasn’t actually been completely silent either”
Here we are on September 16th and finally (apart from a stealth edit) the Beeb mentions the story.
Go through the archives of this blog “Reith” and you’ll see Ed Thomas’ “Willing Dupes” post on September 10th!
The Beeb have spent all week hoping this story would fizzle out. To their undoubted disappointment, it hasn’t.
Reith this looks like your first appearance here since your intemperate and illogical ad-hominem tirade on July 23rd.
Now that you’re presumably in a more sobre mood you will perhaps be kind enough to apologise, as requested at the time, to Natalie, Kerry, Ed and others, including me for your nasty outburst on that occasion.
And then perhaps we can get back to debating the issues with you.
Hello Andrew, long time no annoy. I’m sorry, but I’m afraid I haven’t the faintest clue what you’re talking about, but it obviously has nothing to do with freedom of expression and glass houses.
Michael, forgive me, but the BBC has rightly been concentrating on how the democratic process and civil liberties of millions of people are being trashed by our so-called leaders, (i.e. a British story) which I think it a tad more important than some over-blown tiff over a proportional font on the other side of the world.
Well Reith, it wouldn’t take much effort for you to find out – although you must have been pretty gone to have no recollection of events at all.
That notwithstanding, the mere fact of causing offense, on a personal level mind (as distinct from open and honest discussion), should be sufficient to prompt any reasonably civilised chap to proffer an apology – it’s not much to ask.
As for Rathergate, if the roles were reversed the BBC et al would be all over the story (and the Swiftvets too), regardless of the consequentiality of the story itself – that is where they betray their prejudices in selecting what to cover fully and what to mention in passing.
“which I think it a tad more important than some over-blown tiff over a proportional font on the other side of the world.”
If your idea of an over blown tiff is a news network passing off forged documents as news in an effort to swing a presidential election in a time of war, then you really must be working for the BBC.
CBS refusal to properly investigate these bogus documents or to admit straight up that they are complete fakes, makes them willing accomplices in this fraud.
Why is it that anyone with an independent, questioning mind, who’s not prepared to be sheep, is immediately branded as “working for the BBC”? Get a grip Blue.
Your assumption that these documents are fakes is just that – an assumption. The balance of reporting says the jury’s still out. I prefer to wait for the truth.
Andrew, I have left many posts here, so why do you think you’re so special that I should particularly remember it?
You’ve said many things to/about me which I could have demanded an apology over. I haven’t bothered – my skin appears to be a tad thicker.
As for what you think if the roles were reversed, well, that’s just you jumping to conclusions again. Enjoy the exercise.
Reith, we’ve had plenty of robust exchanges, and my skin is plenty thick.
I do expect (or at least live in hope) though that in a civilised forum we can treat one another with at least a modicum of personal respect, and that when someone goes over the top, on a personal level, as you did on that occasion, that you will be big enough to recognise that and apologise for it once you’ve calmed down.
Like I said, you don’t need to remember – you can check for yourself whenever you feel like restoring your honour.
P.S. Asking you if you work at the BBC and pointing out that you never actually deny that you do should not be taken as an insult!
I have checked, and frankly you have nothing to be proud of since you were the one dishing out the inferences of lying – which you’re right is not an insult, merely defamation.
OK – for the umpteenth time. I do not work for the BBC. There, I’ve said it again.
You also implied I hid behind a false pseudonym. Again, you should check your facts – the phone book is full of people with the surname Reith. I am one of them. Live with it.
So what was that about an apology? I’ll accept it whenever you’re ready.
Sorry Reith, I was expecting too much of you – your idea of etiquette is about as spot-on as your defence of the BBC.
Anyway, time to stop feeding the trolls and get back to bashing the Beeb, at least until I’m not forced to pay towards their biased news output or suffer the consequences of a society moulded and influenced by the lefties at the BBC.
Ooooooooh, boot’s on the other foot now eh? Calls for reasoned debate and honour, but isn’t up to being honourable himself when the truth is out.
I’m just as forced to pay for the BBC’s news output as you are mate, so don’t go getting the idea you’re some kind of special case.
Perhaps if you’d stuck to reasonable and civilised debate, rather than muck-raking, this thread would be a lot more enlightening. As it is, we seem to have frightened everyone else off. Another victory for freedom of speech, not.
Not at all – I’m just not going to waste any more time on you.
Reith
You are lying when you say that thee balance of reporting on the Killian memos is that it is unclear they are forged.
Apart from CBS, no reputal media outlet is now averring that they are genuine. Most of the media are saying they are fake – even Dem papers like the LA Times.
You are just like the BBC – either ignoring the real facts, or twisting them.
“Your assumption that these documents are fakes is just that – an assumption.”
No, it’s CBS that’s making the assumption: that they are real. An assumption that they have not produced one shred of HARD evidence to back up their claim. Some newscaster waving a bit of paper on air and claiming it’s authentic just won’t wash anymore in this day and age.
We don’t have to wait for CBS to pontificate on the matter. The case that these are 100% complete and utter bogus, worthless pieces of paper is backed by hard evidence from numerous sources.
Their continued attempt to palm this fraud off as bona fida news, one week after the matter was brought to their attention, is nothing short of criminal.
Really Andrew – didn’t you just do that – how sad you always seem to have to have to last word.
JohninLondon/Blue – so refreshingly blunt, but missing the point. My statement on the balance of reporting was clearly an opinion, since I say I am waiting for the truth. As an opinion, by definition, it cannot be a lie.
No-one has addressed the question of whether the content of the documents is genuine, while the reproduction is fake. Someone may have had a damaged typewritten copy which they’ve transcribed accurately using a modern word processor. Just a theory, but not impossible.
Indeed CNN said tonight: “CBS News … may never conclusively know whether it was duped by fake documents.
The problem is that the non-story of the smoke-screen of approbrium over CBS is hiding the real story: Who produced these documents, and why?
As I said, I prefer to wait for the truth before jumping to conclusions.
Even CBS and Rather is now interviewing people who say the memos are fake, one being the Colonel’s secretary who denies ever having typed them. They presented her because she says the memos present Colonlel Killian’s thoughts at the time.
This seems to be their way of sneaking up on the truth a little bit at a time. Rather dismisses the memos in favor of “the story is true though” as if he didn’t present fraudulent evidence to support the story. CBS is taking a beating over this.
Some days I wish there was a preview feature so I could correct grammar and typos…oh well.
“CBS is taking a beating over this”
Too right – if their journalism has failed so abyssmally, they deserve everything they get.
The troll appears hopeless, Andrew. One wonders how he would react whilst working in the woods upon hearing someone nearby loudly call out, “Timber”!
Would Reith yell, “You can’t do that here”!, or would he just jump aside?
Probably the former, I would think. Too bad. If he had matured, he probably would have turned into a decent mate.
I wouldn’t be stupid enough to be in the woods in the first place.
I was dumbfounded that many years ago the BBC appointed the amiable Patrick Moore as its expert on astronomy and space travel.
later it was discovered that he had no scientific qualifications whatsoever and indeed it appeared that no one on the BBC had any either , so he got the job.
Is it any wonder then that even today they are unable to grasp what any newby typesetter knows – that a typewriter is a typewriter and not a typesetting machine.
Word processing was introduced precisely because it bypasses the typesetter and enables proportional spacing of fonts.
Even if one admits that the Hitler diaries were an elaborate fraud , these memos are in comparison childishly fraudulent!
to resist that view is to fall to the level of the flat earth society.
For the CBS to continue to deny and admit their stupidity gives one a frightening insight into their BIAS and the levels of integrity of that organisation.
Would the BBC have acted in a similar fashion? I very much doubt it.