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.
Bush Bashing Corporation 2
The Today programme is back on track this morning, where its heart is, attacking Bush. There are many examples to choose from.
Of course, the speech by Bush last night is seen by Naughtie et al as an admission of failure in Iraq. Support for Bush is of course “draining away”.
Then Humphreys says that the predictions of the anti-war protesters have come true. What, all of them?
Justin Webb continues his “axis of Bush-related evil” theme. Has Webb ever said anything positive about the USA? Given that he lives there, why does he have such a caricature of Americans that would be at home in Der Spiegel? I have live in the USA, and know that his picture of the USA is largely wrong.
However, Webb, Naughtie et al seem to forget that support for Bush has “drained away” so much that he won the presidential election 7 months ago. An inconvenient fact in Beeboid land. Perhaps Webb needs to get out of his Washington bubble a bit more.
Finally we descend into pure conspiracy theory farce as Prince Hassan of Jordan blames the outcome of the Iranian election on Bush and Israel. I mean, we all know a moderate democrat who wants equal rights for women would sweep the Iranian elections if the Jewish state disappeared. Hassan even quotes from Scott Ritter (he who thinks that the USA has already been attacking Iran for some time). I mean, why not get that protester bloke from Parliament square instead. He would be cheaper too.
“Radio 4 – Intelligent speech”
Oh no, I thought it couldn’t get worse, but now we have the Yazzmonster pronouncing on Africa. Watch out whitey!
Eamonn
Time to go out/walk the dog/do something, anything else. You just know that when the Yazzmonster pops up you’ve been taken to Planet Nut Nut.
BBC comedy is invariably spinning down to one, long, anti-American bore-fest. Mock the Week is their latest offering on a Sunday featuring the same tired old face trotting out the same tired old gags. However it begins you know that a Bush/fat Americans gag bursting to make its appearance, with an audience of students only to ready to laugh their little North London class socks off.
There are plenty of fat Indians in East London to crack a gag over, but no, there’s only one nation that it’s acceptable to make fun of. So much for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’. I tell you, when the US Marine come sailing up the Thames I’ll certainly hear the call to arms. I’ll join’em in a flash.
There’s nothing wrong with reporting on the increasing problems Bush is facing in his second term, which are genuine – any unbiased broadcaster would do the same. As you say though, the BBC spends so much time on unnecessary sniping that it’s hard to tell when there are genuine concerns about Bush’s performance.
Re: comedy – I agree entirely. There are plenty of demographic groups who are just as amusing as Bush and Americans as any pub conversation will confirm. However if you go to comedy clubs which are presumably the breeding ground of TV talent everyone there is doing the half arsed left wing fat Americans thing. It’s a bit like Scottish football – unless you get things moving at grass roots level you’re going to end up drawing with the Faroe Islands.
The problem with broadcasting comedy, drama etc etc with a more right wing bent is that nobody produces anything decent. Has there ever been a well formed informative and entertaining programme produced questioning Islamic belief (btw I saw the Van Gogh thing and publicity aside unfortunately it’s sh*t)?
This is a huge gap in the market for independent talent. I appreciate that there might be some resistence from the politically correct arm of the broadcasters but if something got ratings it would be prime time pronto. The standard response is that ‘conservatives are too busy doing proper work blahdeblah’, but does anyone here earn more than Frank Skinner? Or is it just that the conservative typecast of thick glasses, sense of humour deficit and personality bypass more than a stereotype?
btw I’m not worried about US marines sailing up the Thames. They wouldn’t get past the burger hut on Southend pier. hohoho.
We are saved!
BBC Journalism College launched
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4630895.stm
So far 10,000 members of staff have completed the online editorial policy course (the biggest BBC interactive training initiative yet) and 8000 staff have attended special Neil workshops.
Eh? If anything, bias is getting worse/more obvious. Does Mark Byford ever listen to the Today prog?
This mornings ‘Bush-bash’ was a classic. Hunt around a bit and have a read of the CNN/Gallup survey. It’s a mixed bag of good & bad for bush. e.g.
Here’s how CNN covered it:
Poll: Disapproval of Bush at high point
President’s best marks on terrorism, worst on Social Security
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/27/bush.poll/
According to the poll, 53 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Bush’s performance, compared to 45 percent who approved.
Beeb reports this only and rams it home as support for the Iraq war draining away.
CNN also reports:
The lone bright spot for the president in the poll was his handling of terrorism, which scored a 55 percent approval rating, compared to just 41 percent who disapproved.
???!!!
Best rating was for his handling of terrorism. I don’t want to get carrioed away, the approval was 55%, but hey its a majority.
Did the BBC mention the above? Of course not. What a load of liars.
Just to let you know, the american commentators that the BBC consulted on the ‘low aporval ratings for Bush’ story are the ones they always do – their ringers in the US, and ‘reporters’ for WGBH Boston, PBS, and the like. It would be like finding dozens of clones of likes of Polly Toynbee.
They purposely sought out the most one-sided reporting that money could buy.
As for the Beslan killer/plane-crash analogy: the point is simple.
Planes crash because of weather and mechanical problems. The Beslan School murderers intentfully killed. In the murky haze surrounding European journalism this notion is easily lost.
“There’s nothing wrong with reporting on the increasing problems Bush is facing in his second term, which are genuine – any unbiased broadcaster would do the same. As you say though, the BBC spends so much time on unnecessary sniping that it’s hard to tell when there are genuine concerns about Bush’s performance.”
Good point.
“The problem with broadcasting comedy, drama etc etc with a more right wing bent is that nobody produces anything decent.”
Apart, of course, from Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson.
Seriously though, why does comedy always have to be political these days? I always found Jasper Carrott funny and he never, as far as I know, told political jokes. Rory Bremner is a good example of the comedian who dabbles in politics and then regards himself as more important than he really is i.e. he is no longer funny. On an edition of Loose Ends last week Ned Sherrin was interviewing an American comic, who spent a few minutes developing the thesis that Bush is not thick. Oh no. Rather he is evil. All this to the sniggers and chuckles of Sherrin and his equally vacuous guests. Nobody bothered to challenge this, actually, offensive view.
The best bit of comedy with a message I ever saw was the end of “Blackadder” when the First WW soldiers went over the top to their deaths. Very powerful television, yet not making a partisan point, just highlighting the tragedy of war.
I guess BBC comedians being political (from the BusHitler viewpoint) is sort of de rigeur nowadays. It’s a bit like any James Naughtie interview on the Today programme – irrespective of the original topic, a question on the “disaster” in Iraq is de rigeur. Perhaps they only get their bonus from Kevin Marsh if they do this?
After Hutton, the BBC should have drained the swamp – including Kevin Marsh. But he stays, and the Today programme remains the mouthpiece for the Dems – and the leftie Dems at that. The Ted Kennedy/John Kerry wing. Nowhere does the BBC report on military practicalities, on whether the terrorists (they still call it insurgency) have any real popular support. They report the Kennedy quagmire line, but never the slapdowns that Kennedy got to his face last week from three US generals. They parrot away about “timetable for withdrawal” without listening to the clear and obvious military arguments against such a course. Total bias – which is then broadcast to the wide world on Al-Beeb’s World Service.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/06/whos-on-first.html
Teddy Bear….
Before I discovered biased-bbc, I complained about this article on their website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4556113.stm
I watched the whole of Galloway’s appearence in front of the Senate. I got the impression he was extremely evasive and economical with the truth. Reading the one-sided BBC article, you’d think he was some kind of national hero.
I never even received a reply from the BBC.
Rob
This is a bit off topic, but did anybody hear the weather report on the Today programme this morning?
The weather guy was warning that “If you’re thinking of going to Wimbeldon today, be aware that it will probably rain at some point”. When John Humprey’s (I’m sure it was him) voice come booming over the mic “THANK GOD FOR THAT”.
Are they still struggling with their microphones? Or did he just wish show the audience know his disdain for tennis?
OT
High praise for Natalie :
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010874.php
Could be a fun day out…..
Licence payers to grill BBC board
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4633851.stm
Get your tickets here:
http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/
OT
From http://www.bbcgovenors.co.uk
“BBC objectives 2005-2006
We have set five objectives for 2005-2006, some informed by consultation with licence payers around the UK. ”
“4. impartiality and independence: Ensure that the BBC meets the highest standards of accuracy, fairness and impartiality expected by audiences in all its programmes. In particular, strengthen editorial processes to deliver high quality, trusted journalism by implementing the recommendations of the Neil report and acting on the Governors’ independent reviews of impartiality. ”
They really are having a laugh……
Ho-hum, yet another ode to the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, which the BBC is still inaccurately insisting will “dwarf” all the other participating vessels:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4627469.stm
Excerpt:
The British and French navies are the strongest in Europe
One of the sailors on board the warship jokes that the Charles de Gaulle will be escorted into the English Channel by a British frigate in order to “ward off the spirit of Admiral Nelson”, fatally injured by a French sniper during the Battle of Trafalgar.
Yet the Captain of the Charles de Gaulle, Xavier Magne, says Admiral Nelson is admired by the French navy as well for his tactical skills and his leadership.
Xavier Magne insists he welcomes the chance to show France’s largest warship at Tuesday’s celebration of the sea, not least to prove just how far Franco-British relations have come over the years.
“We are happy to go and celebrate that with your British forces.
“Trafalgar is the past, and now we are looking to the future together in the European Union, and better defence co-operation within Europe.”
Look how the BBC marketing director — oops, I meant, the BBC “editor” — for the EU has managed to slip in a key message promoting the EU into a story about the battle of Trafalgar! Well done guys, that’s a great piece of market “messaging”.
hi guys i wish th bbc wd sho more pornos like ch 5. do u think so
luv grant
Susan
Click on the cartoon to see what we think of the French Navy. The Navy that failed to deliver much to the tsunami victims.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2005290651,00.html
Ah, John,
Would that it were not just a cartoon 🙂
Here’s an article from Wikipedia on the Chuck de. G., which contains a list of its many technical problems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FS_Charles_de_Gaulle
This sounds rather alarming:
On the 28th of February 2000, a nuclear reactor trial triggered the combustion of additional isolation elements, producing a smoke incident.
Let’s hope there are no more radioactive “smoke incidents” while the Chuck is upwind of other vessels!
Much of the BBC is following the line taken by much of the liberal media in the US of denying Bush’s assertion that Saddam’s Iraq had lots of links to terror. They assert “absolutely no connection” to 9/11 – but ignore the links even Clinton’s people had seen between Iraq and the terror merchants :
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
Rob, Re – I never even received a reply from the BBC.
Probably just as well. If they do, then they almost invariably dismiss criticism and simply re-assert their POV. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are those high up at the BBC who received similar kickbacks from Saddam as did Galloway, and they view him as ‘one of them’.
The only difference between CNN and the BBC is that after Saddam was deposed, CNN admitted bias in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1120190400&en=f36feb5765bfcecc&ei=5070
The BBC just goes on where it’s ‘business as usual’.
O/T
It’s rather ironic that ‘Beeb’ could also be a shortening for Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies)
http://media.guardian.co.uk/radio/story/0,12636,1517361,00.html
Roles reversed as politicians grill Humphrys
Julia Day, radio correspondent
Wednesday June 29, 2005
John Humphrys was today forced to defend his tough interviewing style to politicians as he appeared in front of a House of Lords committee investigating the future of the BBC.
In a role reversal that will no doubt have satisfied his interviewers, the Today programme presenter and scourge of politicians faced a grilling from the committee on his famously tough approach.
Asked to define his role at the BBC, he replied: “Nobody elected me, I have the job because I have been appointed by the BBC. My job is on behalf of my listeners to hold people in authority and power to account, to ask questions that listeners might like to ask but can’t because they don’t have the access we have.”
Asked by the committee, chaired by Lord Fowler, whether there was any mechanism in place on the Today programme for redressing balance if it was considered he had gone too far in an interview, Humphrys replied: “It is very difficult to judge if an interview has been too tough, it is a desperately difficult thing to judge.”
“But stating an opinion is easier to judge. If one does that, it is reprehensible. I don’t state my views in interviews,” said Humphrys.
Humphrys admitted he had had “pre-emptive pressure” from prime ministers saying they did want to speak about specific subjects, adding, “that’s absolutely fine”.
“Where I would take serious exception is if BBC’s bosses said I really ought to take it easy with Joe Bloggs. That has never happened in my entire career in the BBC and if it did happen I would be out of the door the next morning,” he added.
Humphrys was appearing before the Lords media select committee examining the BBC’s charter, following the publication in March of a green paper on the corporation’s future.
The committee also quizzed the BBC Radio 4 Today programme editor, Kevin Marsh; Nick Robinson, the ITV political editor who is due to take on the same role at the BBC later this year, and Sky News’ political editor, Adam Boulton.
Marsh admitted there were two areas that were particularly fraught for the BBC to cover – the Middle East and religion.
“Objectivity, fairness and balance is not about finding a middle ground on which everyone can agree; that’s not what objectivity is about,” he said.
But Marsh told the committee: “My chair is in the middle of the production office and I can hear everything going on around me. I am aware of all the acts of slight pressure, moderate pressure and major pressure.
“We do have to be aware of that pressure and enable people to respond. The most important thing junior people have to do is to take a step back and ask journalistically what’s the right answer to this situation. You have to deal with pressure as part of the situation.”
But Boulton claimed the BBC had been guilty of caving in to pressure from politicians in the past.
“The BBC has an elaborate management structure which means it finds it much more difficult to respond to pressure, either falling over backwards in the case of Peter Mandelson’s sexuality or reacting the other way in the case of Hutton.
“I don’t think an organisation that responds to shareholders can afford to act in that way, and they don’t.”
There was much criticism of the BBC, with Boulton claiming that most significant advances in TV news had been driven by the commercial sector and arguing vociferously for the BBC to be externally regulated.
“We at Sky take the view that the mistakes that took place over Hutton at the BBC will be perpetuated if the government has its way with this white paper.
“It beggars belief that the DCMS is taking a strong view that the BBC can continue to be self-regulating,” he argued.
Even Robinson, due to take over from Andrew Marr as the BBC’s political editor, claimed that the “notion the BBC has any unique gold standard is clearly wrong”.
JiL
I watched the president’s speech last night and I totally agree that giving a timetable for withdrawal is a mistake. We all saw the increased violence that took place when we gave the June 30th deadline for turnover last year. Bush wouldn’t have done it, I believe, if he hadn’t been pressured to do so at the time. But it was a lesson learned and I’m glad to see that he is NOT giving a deadline this time. The left knows good and well that the timetable will result in more violence. What they want, are excuses to say, “See? Look what a failure Iraq is!”
JiL
On Saddam, what the left fails to see (or doesn’t want to see) is that after 9/11, Bush said we would go after terrorists and THOSE WHO HARBOR THEM. Not just those responsible for 9/11. Not just OBL. The left either wasn’t listening or they didn’t care. Whether Saddam had ties to 9/11 or not is beside the point and the left won’t get that through their thick heads. Saddam allowed terrorists to train in Iraq and FUNDED them. Saddam WAS a terrorist to his own people. And the left also says that we created the current terrorism there by going into Iraq, so the violence is all our fault. Total BS. An Iraqi friend of mine at work said that there were thugs stirring up trouble there long before we went in and it wasn’t just the Ba’athists, either. Women accused of prostitution were beheaded and their heads would be left on their family’s doorstep to find in horror. Women would be grabbed at random and raped right in the street. And that’s only some of it. If that isn’t terrorism, I don’t know what is. Oh, but the Iraqi people were just SO happy under Saddam! I guess that’s why my friend escaped to the US after her brother was murdered!
JiL
I made my last comment before checking out your link in your last post, doh! So Saddam DID have connections after all! So what I said above, “Whether Saddam had ties to 9/11 or not is beside the point” would not be correct.
OT
Amidst the complaints about the BBC Licence Fee http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/press_notices/archive_2004/dcms150_04.htm?month=November&properties=archive_2004%2C%2Fglobal%2Fpress_notices%2Farchive_2004%2F%2C £2.8billion & rising we seem to overlook another TV Licence Fee, that paid by ITV for the priveledge of broadcasting.
Yesterday’s news that Ofcom is slashing this by almost two-thirds to £80 million can only be welcome news.
Charles Allen, ITV chief executive successfully argued that “the value of ITV’s licence, which gives it the right to broadcast over publicly owned analogue spectrum, is tumbling as Britain switches to digital and audiences shift to multi-channel television ” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/06/30/cnitv30.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/portal/2005/06/30/ixportal.html
ITV’s Channel 3 licence fee will fall to a mere £4m by 2012, when the Government plans to switch off all analogue TV signals.
“I think it’s a fair result for us and we are minded to accept the terms Ofcom has proposed,” said Mr Allen.
No doubt the BBC would want argue that it can justify it’s extortionate demands “to enable the BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality programmes and remain at the forefront of broadcasting technology.”
Yawn.
Fran
Exactly. I support what Bush has set out to do but the simple truth is that he has done a rotten job of explaining just why the it is being done. It’s more than just ‘selling’ the case for war: servicemen and women sent to Iraq and the taxpayer who is forced to meet the bill have the right to know.
It seems to me the administration has decided that the sheer rightness of it speaks for itself.
An occasional speech liberally dotted with ‘freedom n liberty’ doesn’t cut it. I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve explained to friends and aquaintances the reasons why we went into Iraq, invariably followed by a “well I didn’t know that”.
Well that was odd. I replied to Fran yet that reply appeared above Fran’s comment.
Via An Englishman’s Castle:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/
We have:
EVEN GERMAN TV PROVIDES MORE COVERAGE OF TRAFALGAR THAN THE BBC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/30/ntraf30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/06/30/ixportal.html
“Criticism of the BBC’s coverage of the Trafalgar celebrations intensified yesterday after it emerged that German television planned to screen a documentary on the celebrations which will be longer in length than one made by the corporation.
Scores of irritated viewers complained after the BBC chose to restrict its Trafalgar broadcasts on terrestrial channels to just a 30-minute live programme before Wimbledon coverage took precedence….
admit that the corporation, which has 170 BBC staff in Portsmouth, “perhaps did underestimate the popularity of the event”.
“The Trafalgar celebrations were shown live and recorded by stations from Japan, France, South Korea, China and Latvia, with almost 1,000 journalists in the area.”
“The BBC also failed to give live coverage to yesterday’s drumhead service attended by 6,000 Royal Navy veterans and hosted by Brian Hanrahan and Kate Adie.”
I think “perhaps did underestimate the popularity of the event” sounds rather plausible. The Marxist, Gramscian mind which is anti-British, anti-American, anti our Judeo-Christian culture, anti everything
decent and honourable just doesn’t get it.
Fran,
The key point is that hard evidence of the type that would justify umpteen billion dollars expenditure and thousands of lives is seriously lacking. Don’t know about Bush but Blair wouldn’t be daft enough to defend a position based on one of hundreds of ‘me too’ books rushed out about Iraq which could ‘justify’ any position you might care to name, nor would he point at Melanie Phillip’s diary as irrefutable proof.
Cockney
There were two fears that drove Blair and Bush – and Blair was just as driven as Bush. First was the belief at the time – shared by EVERY intelligence service, including the French – that Saddam wanted to continue WMD programmes. That intelligence may have been flawed, but it is what the politicians were working on. Second was the mix of evidenced including stuff gathered by Clinton’s people that Saddam provided cover and in some cases support to known terrorists. After 9/11 that nexus was seen as far too dangerous to be allowed to continue. Yes, the case has not always been put coherently enough. But serious politicians and commentators should at least KNOW the case, not deny its very existence.
Here again is the link to a list of evidencon the nexus between Saddam and terrorism :
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
The BBC has always been in denial. Blair and his Cabinet had many discussions on Iraq, and they rather than the BBC are responsible for safeguarding our safety.
The BBC and others can carry on snapping at the heels of Blair and Bush (and John Howard). But in each case their electorate had the chance to eject them and did not.
Where some of the media are really behaving disgracefully is in NOT challenging the politicians who are proposing a timetable for withdrawal. That nonsense should be slapped down as dangerous. But instead the BBC and others have given it greater credence, which plays to the terrorists they so often gloss over. Either BBC editors and presenters are completely ignorant of military and security realities – or they are fellow-travellers, basically wanting a defeat. Or maybe a mix.
Re climate change – I watched Newsnight last night as it seemed to promise a debate between pros & agnostics. Instead Susan Watts (whom we are supposed to like) merely sought to portray the “naysayers” as big oil stooges. So Watts, the Science Editor, presented no science.
Cockney
In case you are minded to dismiss the suggestions of links between Saddam and terrorism, please note that the leading Dem Senators all supported that notion when they voted for action on Iraq in October 2002 :
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010880.php
Shame is, lefty wobblers like Kennedy and Kerry try to duck that line now.
Seems my post prompted by Andrew Paterson’s reference to climate change got on the list above his.
Further to my post – it seems funding by business produces corrupt scientists. The BBC ignore the possibility of public sector funded scientists being influenced by the source of their funding. Don’t those scientists know which way the wind blows, & how to keep their feet in the trough?
One way we can avoid all this rubbish about bias is to get ourselves a written CONSTITUTION that would do away with state-funded monsters.
This would include the bbc, the monarchy, the lords, the state religion, and possibly even the present version of national ILL health. The only things to get my tax money would be the military so we can bomb poor terrorists, and the police so we can round up all those opposed.
OT
What the hell do all those BBC researchers do all day ? It takes just a few moments skimming arfound the web to find another strong thread of material linking Saddam with terrorism and specifically with l Quada :
http://www.socalpundit.com/blog/
Why doesn’t the BBC commission a programme to trace all these links, to examine their credence ? It could be a fascinating Panorama. Why won’t they – because they are in denial. They would rather let Panorama last night repeat without challenge the total lie that the Italian journalist released from hostage was deliberately targeted by US forces.
Above all – the BBC shows its moral vacuity by calling foreign terrorists/ headchoppers in Iraq “insurgents”. They WANT the US and Iraq to fail.
John,
Personally I think the jury is still out on the benefits of the war and if in 10 years time we have a stable democracy I’ll fully accept that it was entirely justified but the links to Al Qaueda are at best extremely tenuous.
The National Review article is b*llocks, full of words like ‘alledgedly’, ‘reported’, ‘suspected’, ‘suggested’….
If I was going to spend hundreds of billions and risk thousands of lives I’d want a Hell of a lot better than that before I made my decision.
Great piece on Communism / Leftism by Boris Johnson in today’s Telegraph: http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/06/30/do3001.xml
Cockney
The immediate debate is not about whether the Iraq campaign is going to succeed. It is about whether there is evidence linking Saddam to terrorism. You seem to dismiss ALL the suggested evidence. But a lot of it is not “alleged” or tenuous. A lot of it is fact. eg Abu Nidal, Saddam’s payments to suicide bombers.
It is the spread of evidence that is compelling. Maybe some of it is not provable, but neither has it been disproved. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck…. Do you really prefer to have taken risk of leaving Saddam in place ? That was the judgment Bush and Blair had to take, and the debate should be cat in terms of what the balnce of risks was. NOT the denial of risks.
The point is that the BBC is BLIND to any such evidence, any such claims. It seizes any stick to beat George Bush.
What everybody seems to be overlooking is that Western Intelligence services were the victims of a deliberate, and very effective, misinformation campaign by Saddam himself. He *wanted* the world to believe he had stockpiled WMDs instead of just an R&D program. He intended to go back into production as soon as the sanctions were dropped, which you may recall was a popular leftist position pre-war.
Frankly his thinking on this point puzzled me a bit, if he wanted the sanctions dropped surely it was to his advantage to let his lack of ready to use WMDs be known? But Saddam knew better than me, he knew that the cowardly, appeasing element in Europe and America would be all the more eager to drop the sanctions if they thought he had a ‘big stick’.
It wasnt’ necessary for Bush or Blair to ‘sex up’ the data. Saddam was deliberately feeding them false intelligence.
John,
At the time I would certainly have risked the negligible danger which I believed Saddam posed to Britain over the potential for making a pigs ear of the entire Middle East for decades to come.
As of now I think the potential is there for it to go either way, but nothing I’ve seen has convinced me that Saddam posed any major risk to this country in 2002.
Cockney
Fair enough – that is your view. It could go up, it could go down.
Problem with the BBC is they only present the possible downside.
I’m in agreement with that.
During the Kosovo war, then Governor Bush demanded that then President Clinton provide a timetable for troop withdrawl.
The Democrats are merely doing what the Republicans did during the Kosovo episode.
In his speech, Bush waffled on about “freedom” and “9/11”, but yet again provided no clear definition of the objectives and aims of the Iraq campaign.
Why are we there?
What is our objective?
When do we go home?
There is a need for more troops, most Generals think this, but the incompetent Rumsfeld doesn’t. When Bush says Generals he actually means Rumsfeld.
So, to recap:
The White House has no strategy for Iraq.
The Left has no alternative strategy.
Zevylyn
What a stupid set of qestions you pose. The US and the UK are there because their elected governments decided to go, and won the support of Congress and Parliament to go. That debate is OVER. They remain there because the elected Government of iraq wants them to stay until a proper handover can be achieved.
The overall objective is to allow Iraq to move to a full democracy under its own new constitution.
Parroting “exit strategy” is daft. But as Bush said, the US will stand down as the Iraqis are able to stand up.
The US generals have their own line to Bush. If they wanted more troops, they would get them, Rumsfeld or no Rumsfeld.
Do you ever listen to what is being said ?
Re: Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda, PLO et al.
Try reading Richard Miniter’s “Shadow War” to get chapter and verse on his links with AQ. Also check out Melanie Phillips’ diary
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/
and go through the archives – lots there too. Why on earth don’t Blair and Bush defend themselves more robustly on this issue? The peacenik brigade do not have truth on their side in this case!
OT
Now you see them – now you don’t.
The BBC reports that there are up to 570,000 illegal immigrants in Britain. But the other media report that in addition to this figure there are some 720,000 to 770,000 seeking asylum or appealing against refusal. The BBC simply rubbed out these figures from the Press Association text :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4637273.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1675284,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/story/0,15729,1518257,00.html
WHY did the BBC erase the figures ?
I saw the News 24 live report on Beslan that Dominic Williams refers too, and remember the female reporter’s comments very well. He has described her words accurately. I don’t know who she was, but I haven’t forgotten.On a disturbing, horrifying day her words rang out as such an example of the BBC worldview.
OT
Lebanon was never occupied by Syria but it is important to mention that:
Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets and mortars at two Israeli outposts in the Shebaa Farms area and shelled another in Israeli-occupied Syrian territory.
And
The United Nations has ruled that the area belongs to Syria and says its fate is linked to the occupied Golan Heights – which is subject to separate UN resolutions telling Israel to leave.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4634647.stm
O/T
Did anybody see the new climate study concerning ‘global cooling’ on sky news this morning? I left before it came on, and I can’t find it on the net anywhere.