He followed up on his previous assessment of Iran’s election candidates, this time focussing on the winner, Ahmadnejad. It’s almost as though he were trying to bolster his argument that we should have been hoping for a Rafsanjani win.
But I was struck by his characterisation of America’s view of Iran:
‘Abroad, the Americans were the least surprised by the result. They assume anyway that Iran is a country seething with hatred for the US and determined to dominate the region by threat and undercover terrorism.’
Well, certainly they often take that view of Iran’s ruling class, but it seems to me a very ingrate sort of comment given that the US offers succour to all manner of dissidents from Iran. Since they’re not as infamous as Iraqi counterparts such as the tarred Chalabi, perhaps we can still find sympathy for them and interest in the views of those for whom the US has provided refuge.The point here is that the US rather assumes that under the dead weight of the Mullahs there are many people lying powerless who have no animus against the US and see them instead as a flickering lantern of hope.
Simpson goes on to say ‘Iranian politics are as complex and sophisticated as any I have observed around the world.’
Now, I could accept ‘complex’, and can understand a columnist’s desire for snappy duplicates to make his sentences sing, but ‘sophisticated’?
When was the last time the US’s politics was described by the BBC as ‘sophisticated’? (a challenge for fans of Justin Webb, I feel. Funnily enough, in this by now quite well known article, he says that the US is complex- in its heart-, and… unsophisticated (-in many respects).
Examples of Iranian political sophistication, here.
I suppose I mention the US because some might say that, as both the US and Iran have the death penalty, that makes Iran as worthy of the ‘sophisticated’ epithet as the US. Even granting that point, which I wouldn’t, still only leaves us with ‘as worthy as’– a slight problem for the Justin Webb fraternity (or the John Simpson one– ed– and by the way this doesn’t mean all Beeboids should think alike, but that the use of totemic language should be minimised and strictly weighted by factual evidence– also ed). Indeed, if I opposed the death penalty and considered all governments who allowed for its maintainance to be cause for branding a country unsophisticated (which I don’t), it still leaves the ticklish problem of how one squares Simpson’s view with the reality that as a proportion of their population, the Iranians (officially) execute far more people (in public, too) than does the US.
And, of course, it’s what they execute them for which is often horriffic…
Finally, Simpson says that ‘The best the British, French and Germans can do is persuade Iran to be more cautious and tactful in following its nuclear ambitions. Ayatollah Khamenei may see the sense of that.’ , which goes to reinforce the point that Simpson does not regard the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons as an extremist position.
He has foregrounded this comment by saying that ‘Iran believes it lives in a difficult neighbourhood, with Israel, China, Russia, India and Pakistan’– which seems on the face of it a fair enough point. But which of these exactly threatens Iran in a nuclear fashion? Who has an interest in nuking or invading Iran? Answer, none- and again he ignores the Israeli issue, which, if Rafsanjani is a moderate, makes you almost tremblingly curious as to what Ahmadnejad has in his locker (my own suspicion is they wanted a dog with a louder bark, who has a reputation for biting).
But, a country’s elite which flays its people, imprisons political opponents, executes many publicly, organises ‘interesting’ elections outside all scrutiny, and on top of all this sees its salvation in the ultimate psycho’s wet dream, the nuclear option, is to be regarded as too sophisticated to bother except with diplomatic pillow talk?
That’s why the BBC remains a gift to the moonbat left, singing an incoherent lullaby of appeasement.
OT: Call to arms 🙂
Please read the economist article about BBC bias in the selection for top philisopher:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4109052
To cut a long story short: “In their place we suggest the current third-place candidate: a liberal sceptic and empiricist, a contemporary of Adam Smith and a man with a good shot at winning. Economist readers seeking to stop Marx should vote for David Hume.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosopher_vote_6to10.shtml
I heartily endorse Goose’s and The Economist’s recommendation. Hume all the way!
Re Beeb on Iran, saying that a country’s politics are sophisticated is a long way from claiming that a country’s policies are civilised.
What Simpson writes is an inverted reality. But, overall, the BBC is beyond help. Ignoring all that is said about Iran, and picturing Iran as a victim of its neighbourhood is a skilful art that the BBC, communists and tyrants can do well. The BBC et al, with their actual racist superiority starting point, who believe that other people do not deserve similar, free and democratic way of life, stand as obstacle for liberating the oppressed people of the Middle East and elsewhere,
Rachel
The oppressed people who just voted overwhelmingly for a total maniac because he was the candidate who most opposed our plans to forcibly liberate them, you mean?
Read the reference to ‘sophisticated’ politics in context and it appears to be a reference to the myriad factional interests, allegiences and levels of power in Iran, rather than inferring that the political elites spend their days sipping cocktails in Italian suits and discussing French cinema.
Re: the nuclear issue, surely any idiot can see why Iran might want nuclear weapons as much as any other nation. Just about every potential trigger for potential conflict (border disputes, unstable neighbours, ethnic tensions, energy issues) impacts on it even without the Israeli situation, the ‘axis of evil’ rhetoric and the fast and loose approach being adopted to non proliferation treaties by the existing nuclear powers. If I was an Iranian I’d quite fancy some too so to present this as extremism is ludicrous.
Understanding the motivations is the key to deciding on an effective response not pretending it’s all down to extreme irrationality.
Understanding the motivations … well there’s obliterating Israel and … erm …
In other news, I’m sure we’ll all be tuned in the Trafalgar celebrations (whoops! I mean ‘T200’. No doubt some resident of North London in purple spectacles thought of that.) Yes, that means it’s Sky News time again, for the BBC is too consumed with Wimbledon and Africa to devote more than a lunchtime 30 minutes to mark one of history’s landmark battles and possibly our greatest ever triumph over the garlic munchers.
The BBC has actually sent someone to the Solent, though. And where are they? What a surprise, they find accommodation with the losers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4623745.stm
Victory at Trafalgar effectively cemented the naval superiority that was the foundation for Pax Britannica – a huge benefit for world maritime trade that the BBC and its ilk airbrushes out of history. But then it sees “trade” as something oppressive, ignoring all the evidence on comparative advantage from David Ricardo onwards.
:’Read the reference to ‘sophisticated’ politics in context and it appears to be a reference to the myriad factional interests, allegiences and levels of power in Iran, rather than inferring that the political elites spend their days sipping cocktails in Italian suits and discussing French cinema.’
Er, that would be covered by ‘complex’- Simpson adds ‘sophisticated’. Why?
Ditto John B’s comment on the same point.
Pete_London,
Quelle Suprise!
————————————
” What Simpson writes is an inverted reality”
The WHOLE of the BBC writes to an inverted reality. I just re-invert. Since parasitic BBC journalists never do journalism anymore they just form symbiotic relationships with their favourite parasitic NGOs feeding them press releases.
That CdG article is incredible, and not only for the fact that the normally military hating Beeb slobbers over what is, after all, a warship. The Beeb normaly displays a degree of deftness over its attempts to make the news, but here the trawling is overt. They even admit to asking a Naval commander about ‘EU tensions’. Say what ?
Apparently, in next week’s segment, the French Foreign Ministry will explain how to protect a convoy against air-to-surface missile attack.
Are you on crack?
Only at weekends. You?
To John B,
According to reports, “millions of Iranians boycotted the election”. Again, not surprisingly, the MSM did not report it.
http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1260
also the following weblog has anything you wanted to learn that the MSM does not report about and other staff:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
best, Rachel
[i]Apparently, in next week’s segment, the French Foreign Ministry will explain how to protect a convoy against air-to-surface missile attack.[/i]
“Right… try to avoid fighting any military dictatorships that the French have sold Exocet missiles to”
Rob
PS – anybody know how to use itallics? Mine don’t seem to be working.
I’m reasonably convinced that LGF contains nothing I *want* to know, although it’s interesting to find out quite how many demented Arab-haters there are out there (and how much the news can be twisted by someone with sufficient bias, a subject that’s also relevant here).
The blog post you link to is a joke, incidentally. Given two or three unsourced bits of anecdotal evidence compiled by an expat crank with a grudge, compared with, err, everyone else in the entire world (including MEMRI, which is hardly famous for its pro-Iran bias), I’m obviously going to ignore the crank…
Rob: <i>text</i>
selectivity and ideological blindness should make the BBC your classic mate,
Rachel
The link I posted above
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4623745.stm
carries a report from a Katy Glassborow, currently encamped with the losers of Trafalger. She states:
“Now the flagship of the French fleet, FS Charles de Gaulle, is back to help commemorate the Battle of Trafalgar.
“As the largest ship to grace the event, she made an impressive entrance, dwarfing all other vessels as she sailed into the Solent.
“Her 21 “canon de salut” rang out across the overcast harbour, puffs of smoke hanging in the mist as she saluted Britain upon her arrival.”
Accompanying this is a photo of a large, imposing FS CdG. I think the idea is to have us all shaking at this projection of French maritime might and strength.
Unfortunately, Ms Arseblower should’ve looked over her shoulder before compiling her report. If she had done she may have noticed the mighty USS John F Kennedy steaming up the (ehem) English Channel.
Wikipedia seems to have put together the relevent stats for each:
USS JFK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_%28CV-67%29
FS CdG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Charles_de_Gaulle
It seems that far from being the ‘largest ship to grace the event’ and ‘dwarfing’ all others, she has barely half of the displacement of the JFK and loses out on dimensions and speed too.
Hurrah!
Yes, but you’re getting this wrong, Pete. Wasn’t the French navy responsible for making sure British ports weren’t blockaded and ships could (more or less) sail freely to and from the USA throughout the Second World War? Didn’t the French navy also sink the Bismarck in that famous battle?
Hm, something doesn’t sound right here. I guess I need to check my history books again…
Hang on a minute, the yanks weren’t at Trafalgar were they?
Are you sure they haven’t taken the opportunity to ‘liberate’ us whilst our Navy is tarting around playing games at Portsmouth?
BBC News coverage of the 200th Anniversary of Trafalgar Celebrations in the Solent. BBC reporter asks a Nelson expert “Is it really so important that the English won the Battle of Trafalgar anyway?”
That’s after all the reporters have been referring to the Blues v Reds recreation later as being a “recreation of a Napoleonic Battle” thoughout their coverage so far.
I’ve personally not paid my TV licence since the siege at Beslan last year when the BBC reporter on the ground at the time came out with appeasing words at the worst possible time. As she watched the children running from the gunfire for their lives she described “the gunmen are mercifully shooting the children in the backs of their legs to stop them from escaping” then with a sigh she said “if you can say a word merciful at a time like this”
“BBC News coverage of the 200th Anniversary of Trafalgar Celebrations in the Solent. BBC reporter asks a Nelson expert “Is it really so important that the English won the Battle of Trafalgar anyway?””
I think it just shows the stupidity of some of the BBC presenters.
Dominic,
I’ve personally not paid my TV licence since the siege at Beslan last year when the BBC reporter on the ground at the time came out with appeasing words at the worst possible time. As she watched the children running from the gunfire for their lives she described “the gunmen are mercifully shooting the children in the backs of their legs to stop them from escaping” then with a sigh she said “if you can say a word merciful at a time like this.”
You have got to be freakin’ kidding us. Does anybody have a link on this? Even Orla wouldn’t be that disgusting. Someone, please tell me this isn’t true, please tell me that even the Beeb wouldn’t sink this low.
Cockney, there were Americans on board British ships at Trafalgar: http://www.hms-victory.com/index.php?option=content&task=category§ionid=9&id=96&Itemid=67
Why they have invited ships from 50 countries to take part in the celebrations if beyond me though.
This could be one of the most significant bits of news for a while. BT + Microsoft tie up to offer true TV over Broadband.
UK’s BT plans to offer TV via broadband next year
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=8915236
Am I right in thinking that the reason this could be so significant is that it may force a change in the law if the gov/beeb want to force owners of PCs and a broadband connection to pay the licence fee to watch TV from their PC ie without a television or receiving equipment.? i.e. I don’t need a tv licence just now to have a broadband connection & a PC. There will be a subscription required I guess to get the BT/MS broadband TV, but not in addition to the licence fee as is currently if you subscribe to say SKY it is Sky subscription + license fee.
“with delivery of a commercial service expected to begin in the summer of 2006. ”
Timeline wise this could hit the Beeb much quicker than the 10 year cylcle of Royal Charter reviews.
BT & Microsoft are a match for the Beeb. May the battle commence!
I can’t find this story on BBC News website yet. I wonder why.
Miam,
Just let them try to force me to give money to the BBC for having a connection to non-left tainted news.
I VOW here to inflict 1000 times more cost to the BBC for every penny they extort out of me.
(That’s a quarter of Fiona Bruce per year.)
Dear Susan
Sorry for the delay in replying. I don’t have any links for this I’m afraid. I was off work on the day it happened and was watching various channels’ coverage of the siege. This was on News 24. It wasn’t Orla, I can’t remember who it was, it was the lady who was at the scene which just makes it worse. It’s just the words have haunted me ever since. I doubt the BBC have got a link to it on their website, if they have they have no shame.
The mercy is not being shown by the gunment – the reporter is using a standard rhetorical device (eg “mercifully the plane crash only killed 20 people”. The plane crash isn’t being merciful, rather Fate is…). The sentence means, to anyone capable of English comprehension, something like “The terrorists are only shooting the children in the legs, rather than shooting to kill. This is a relief compared to the alternative.”
That only implies that the reporter has sympathy for the terrorists if you’re a barking mad paranoiacal (especially as she realised the incongruity of her expression and corrected herself afterwards).
John B.: You are unbelievable. You really do not think the Beeb are biased, do you? Why don’t you set up a “I love my BBC” blog ???
“BT & Microsoft are a match for the Beeb. May the battle commence!”
They certainly are a match, but what makes you think they will do battle?
They’ll want to sell their services and will comply with whatever regulation the government puts in place that doesn’t impinge on their profits. Recent events have shown Microsoft to be not only compliant with Government censorship, but a willing accomplice to it.
Imagine the government does bring in a UK broadband licence – do you think there will be a successful campaign against it? Let’s assume that (for starters anyway) they include broadband reception permission in the standard TV licence at no extra cost. How many households (i.e. non regular-TV owning) will that leave with just the broadband obligation to pay? How powerful a campaign group will that be?
The status quo should show what would happen to a broadband licence: no significant groupings, not of private individuals nor of commercial enterprises, are interested in challenging the TV licence. There seems nothing different about broadband (assuming the government/BBC plays it cannily at the introduction) to indicate the result won’t be dissimilar.
.
Joerg – this isn’t about defending the BBC, this is about defending Things That Are Sane from Things That Are Insane.
If anyone genuinely believes that the BBC are so evil that one of their correspondents would actually praise terrorists for their mercy in shooting children in the legs, then that person is mentally ill and needs to be sectioned for their own good.
And that’s true whether or not the BBC has a left-wing bias.
Dominic, thanks. I still find the woman’s comments utterly outrageous and contemptible, even for the BBC.
That only implies that the reporter has sympathy for the terrorists if you’re a barking mad paranoiacal
Indeed, john b, it is paranoid to be shocked at the Beeb’s inserting one of its all-too-frequent pro-Islamofascist key marketing messages into a report about fleeing children being shot in the back.
Not. I mean, it’s not as if one of their reporters ever said she cried when Yassir Arafat died, and it’s not as if the BBC never ran gushy, fawning celebratory article after gushy, fawning celebratory article when the Tipton Taliban were released.
Did you manage to see any of the pictures coming out of Beslan? Quite a lot of dead children, and quite a lot of them shot in the head, the back, the stomach — not the legs.
And I do believe that there are a lot of very evil neo-communists / islamofacists at the BBC (Orla Guerin springs to mind immediately)
Joerg,
The BBC reporter sounds like she was trying to do damage control re: Beslan. I ought to know, I used to do this stuff for a living. But most good PR agents know that there are some things you just can’t get away with trying to spin — like helpless children being murdered in large quantities while the world watches. That BBC reporter was obviously not smart enough to realize it, though.
john b, I find it unsurprising that you should choose to attack Dominic Williams for his reaction to the reporter’s words, whilst not examining the reporter’s approach itself (except to provide a semantic defence for it). Your response reminds me of pundits recently appalled at hostages calling their brutal, murderous kidnappers “arseholes”.
Let’s assume Dominic’s recollection of the reporter’s words is correct. What normal person, especially one supposedly inclined and perhaps trained to be a reliable witness, would observe fleeing children being mown down with automatic weapons fire – and then not only take the extraordinary step of providing a real-time explanation of what the shooters are thinking – but actually make the moral leap toward those thoughts having a non-lethal intent?
Did one of the “gunmen” lean out of a window and yell, “don’t worry, we’re not shooting to kill!” ?
What reason would a reporter have to ascribe motive in that manner? If she was shocked and disturbed at what she was seeing so as to lose her detachment, you might expect her to exclaim horror. (“Oh my God, they’re shooting the children!”) Was she trying to protect the viewers? (“Don’t worry kids, the soldiers are only smoking toy cigarettes”)
Your plane crash analogy doesn’t cut it precisely because it refers to cold fate being reported in the past tense. In that event the words would be reasonable. In this case the terrorists were deliberately shooting their hostages. Upon seeing this happening to children, the BBC reporter’s completely uninformed, on the spot, real time gut-reaction is to imply that the terrorists are not shooting to kill.
To play the game of explaining what people are thinking, I’d bet the direction of her reaction was due to the same mindset that made the BBC pack the Question Time audience with the ‘blame America crowd’ immediately following September the 11th – no matter the depravity on display, there is always an explanation that minimises evil on the part of certain evildoers.
Assuming, again, that Dominic’s account is accurate – then his reaction is entirely sane; appropriate to his moral stance. I’ve no doubt your reaction is entirely sane; appropriate to yours.
.
“The mercy is not being shown by the gunment – the”
“The mercy is not being shown by the gunment”
“(eg “mercifully the plane crash only killed 20 people”.”
“if you’re a barking mad paranoiacal”
johnb How can you question my boyfriend Dominic’s capability for English comprehension in a document so full of typing and grammatical errors?
PJF, Joerg and Susan thank you for the supportive comments. Apologies for putting everyone on a downer just as the blogs about the BBC’s coverage of Trafalgar were getting rather comedy.
John B.: You are unbelievable. You really do not think the Beeb are biased, do you? Why don’t you set up a “I love my BBC” blog ???
Joerg | 28.06.05 – 7:49 pm | #
Joerg, you should think that there are many out there who KNOW the BBC IS BIASED, but who support the propaganda that the BBC spouts. Apart from the vast majority of 1.6 billion Muslims, that the BBC appeals to, there are millions of others from our own society who want to be seen to support their cause as well for the political or financial benefit it brings them.
Don’t expect any of them to admit to this bias, despite any logic or fact you bring to bear, it just isn’t going to happen.
As for the BBC admitting to bias, even when found guilty, well you’ve seen how they responded to Hutton.
Laura – I made one typo, which was writing “gunment” instead of “gunmen”. Everything else was gramatically correct, save perhaps the deliberate neologism “paranoiacal”. Next time you fancy grammar-flaming, I recommend focusing on people who are worse at it than you. Oh, and I’m sure you and Dominic are very happy together, bonding over the Daily Mail crossword and engaging in bedtime chats over how the Muslim peril needs to be eliminated.
Joerg/Susan – as I’ve said above, if you’ve been driven so insane by a non-stop diet of LGF and mad propaganda that you *genuinely* believe left-wingers in the mainstream media watch children being shot and think “oh, those children are being shot by our Islamofascist allies. I’m sure it’s all in a good cause, though, so I’ll say things that make the Islamofascists sound less evil”, then you should be hospitalised. Perhaps you could get together while in the asylum? It’d be a match to rival Laura and Dominic’s.
PJF – I’m not assuming Dominic’s words are correct as reported (I’m sure that’s how he recollects them, but I’m convinced the word order was as I list it). I agree that if the journalist had actually suggested the captors were being merciful by only shooting the children in the legs, then that would be appalling. Equally, I would happily stake my life on that never having happened.
Which BBC coverage of Trafalgar ? Huge naval display, big aerial display, mock battle of tall ships, bands playing, and just about the biggest firework show ever seen in the UK. But the BBC gives NIL programme time to it on Channels 1 or 2, or 3 and 4. Not even a highlights half-hour, as far as I can see.
Compare that to the wall-to-wall coverage at Glastonbury, spread across the 4 BBC channels.
The BBC, like much of the mainstream media, seems to disdain the military. They even chose a total wimp like Portillo to deliver their dull Nelson prog. last week rather than a decent military historian.
Glad to hear you’re staking your life on it. As Susan wrote …it’s not as if one of their reporters ever said she cried when Yassir Arafat died, and it’s not as if the BBC never ran gushy, fawning celebratory article after gushy, fawning celebratory article when the Tipton Taliban were released.
Or George Galloway being lauded as some sort of hero – when he shook hands and told the psychopath Saddam, torturer and murderer of millions of men women and children, what a “great man” he was. Not to mention the infamous Rajeh Omarr’s letter to one of Saddam’s son.
Funny how Rajeh has been given a very low profile since then 😆
johnb At least I do not stoop so low as to resort to personal attack and supposition when I cannot win an argument.
O/T
Here’s a must read – especially the last two sentence response by the BBC in their typical dismissive and self-excusing style.
BBC Sunday night ratings hit year low
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,1515982,00.html
O/T can you paste up the text from that article. I don’t want to have my name associated with the Guardian by registering on their website to read it!
BBC Sunday night ratings hit year low
Dominic Timms
Tuesday June 28, 2005
BBC 1 slumped to its lowest Sunday night ratings for more than a year last weekend as it struggled to attract over 17% of the peak time audience.
Picture of Britain, which drew the lowest ratings of the series so far, was the highlight in an otherwise lacklustre evening as viewers migrated to rival channels.
David Dimbleby’s art series attracted 4.2 million viewers and a 19% share, helping BBC1 to its lowest peak time Sunday performance since May 2 last year.
Star Portraits With Rolf Harris and cop show 55 Degrees North also attracted their lowest audiences so far.
Rolf Harris managed just 2.8 million viewers at 7.05pm, less than half the audience of ITV’s Emmerdale.
BBC1’s early evening news at 7.35pm fared slightly better with 3.2 million viewers but only managed an 18% share up against Coronation Street, while the audience for 55 Degrees North fell to 3.4 million viewers, the lowest of the series so far.
The crime show was beaten by Top Gear on BBC 2, which edged ahead with 3.5 million viewers at 8pm and also by ITV’s Where the Heart Is, which drew 6.6 million viewers and a 33% share.
After Channel 4’s Big Brother narrowly beat BBC1’s 10 O’Clock News, Panorama fell to its second-lowest audience of the year with just 1.9 million viewers.
A BBC spokeswoman said the channel’s offering was not “just about ratings” but about bringing “value” to audiences.
“Picture of Britain and Star Portraits are both programmes we are very proud of. It is not just about ratings but the range and quality of our output and the value that this brings to audiences.”
I thought I was boring – but David Dimbleby and “Picture of Britain” were far worse ! I like the scenery of Britain, have walked or trekked a lot of it, and I like a lot of art – but Dimbleby killed it. Total switch-off. Simply did not catch the majesty of the scenery.
Doesn’t the BBC have editors who can point out that “the emperor had no clothes ?”
John, the kind of BBC answer you can expect would be:-
“The Emperor wore attire suitable to the simplicity of the theme being expressed, and many experts praised the ‘natural’ look it granted”.
PJF: Game, set, match.
“if … you *genuinely* believe … then you should be hospitalised.”
Here’s someone who really was psychiatrically hospitalised by left-wingers for his thought crimes:
http://www.bbcbias.org/html/background.html
He still has concerns about certain left-wingers not unknown to us. Perhaps john b thinks Vladimir Bukovsky should be sectioned for another course of treatment in order to protect the good of wider society.
.
PJF made a very good point, john b. If your scenario is correct on the Beslan report, how would the BBC reporter know that the terrorists were aiming at the kids’ legs? She couldn’t have known it — it was an assumption. So why would a reporter automatically assume the best possible interpretation of such an awful incident? Unless the reporter was trying to “spin” the said awful incident somehow . . .
Bush Bashing Corporation
Is it just me or does the 6.30 pm comedy/quiz spot on Radio 4 nearly always feature anti-Bush rhetoric?
Last night we had Boothby Graffoe, who spent the first couple of minutes of his show making fun of an American in the audience, then a couple of minutes making fun of Americans in general, then a solid 5 minutes making original comic observations about Bush. It was hilarious! How I laughed!
The main thrust was that Bush can’t speak properly, is thick, and is supported by stupid red neck Americans. Such a novel angle.
Here is what the BBC Radio 4 website says:-
“Boothby Graffoe “writes great gags, improvises as well as anyone, plays the guitar and sings songs that are both beautiful and funny – at the same time as he makes your mum want to knit him a scarf”. The Guardian. All of which is why he has his own series on Radio 4.”
I think the quote from the Guardian says it all. And that is just one programme.
“Radio 4 – Intelligent Speech”