says the BBC.
As Instapundit says,
Are the terrorists trying to pull a Tet in Iraq? Of course. And the media are trying to help them. “Not surprisingly to me but shocking to many, the President obviously knows more history than his interviewer.”
Knowing more history than most journalists is no great feat.
Instapundit is quoting from and links in turn to Tigerhawk, who says:
Not surprisingly to me but shocking to many, the President obviously knows more history than his interviewer. When President Bush “accepts” the analogy of the surge in violence in Iraq to the Tet offensive in Vietnam, he is not “accepting” that Iraq is an unwinnable struggle against a noble enemy. He is saying that victory or defeat in Iraq will not be a function of the amount of violence that the enemy is able to do during any given period, but our will to keep fighting notwithstanding that violence. In that one regard, Iraq is dangerously similar to Vietnam, which fact the mainstream media would know if the typical editor read military history instead of the journalism pretending to be history that fills the bestseller lists.
Tigerhawk’s complaints about the word “accepts” refer to ABC news, but it’s no surprise that the same can be said about the BBC headline and coverage. Nor is that one word at all unrepresentative of the whole tone of the BBC article. It says both in the text and a subhead that Tet was a “huge pyschological blow”, and that it “eroded support” – while not laying quite such stress on the fact that the people who made that blow land were the media with their false reports that the Tet Offensive had been successful.
The cause for the BBC’s rejoicing here, I suspect, is that they are claiming vindcation for their predictions of a ‘quagmire of Vietnam proportions’ when the war to remove Saddam began.
The irony, as Ms Solent’s post shows so clearly, is that the comparison lies not in the two campaigns themselves, but in the way, in both cases, that the third estate acted as a fifth column.
The BBC report linked to states about Tet(10th paragraph):
“Militarily, the assault failed but it was a huge psychological blow for the Americans and their allies, and eroded political support for the then president, Lyndon Johnson.”
In what way are we being inaccurate here? Is the above paragraph untrue?
(I work for the BBC)
Nick, while we have you contributing to the site, could you let us know whether the BBC intend to add up all the fatalities that have occured in Iraq during the past week (obviously you would be aware that they are giving a daily tally during the 10 O’clock News) and then compare the total which they have reported with the estimated 500 deaths per day which should be occuring according to the recent controversial report published in The Lancet?
“Western public opinion is the key,
not its arsenal. If united, Europeans and America will likely
dissuade Iranians from going ahead with nuclear weapons. If disunited,
Iranians will be emboldened to plunge ahead.” -Daniel Pipes in
http://frontpagegag.com (18 Oct)).
Source correction:
Daniel Pipes (Oct 18) at:
http://frontpagemag.com
“(I work for the BBC)” Let me applaud Mr. Reynolds’ admirable candor (or, if he prefers, candour). I won’t even follow up that admission with the half dozen punch lines that immediately occur to me.
But I will answer his question. What is wrong with that paragraph is that it is incomplete. The Tet offensive was a psychological success because American reporters, with a few honorable exceptions, got the story wrong, massively wrong. It was their errors that made the Tet offfensive a success, psychologically. And almost no reporters seem to have learned from that failure to get the story right.
(I have no idea whether the BBC also got the story wrong at the time, but I would not be surprised to learn that they did. And that the BBC has never really corrected the record.)
By the way, if Reynolds is interested in knowing more about this subject, I would suggest he find a copy of Braestrup’s classic, The Big Story.
Did you hear Margaret Gilmore
on Al Beeb earlier today, commenting on new counter-terrorist report that UK is No. 1 target now for Al Qaeda?
She compared Al Qaeda terrorist training camps with Boys’ Brigade camps! This may be edited out of later editions. Will Al Beeb apologise to Boys’ Brigade, or was her remark intended as an Al Beeb
compliment?
Is ‘Biassed BBC’ the same as ‘Agenda BBC?’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
[Could commenters please put stories unrelated to the topic of the post on the open thread. – Admin]
Edited By Siteowner
Nick Reynolds
Speaking for myself, welcome.
Its refreshing to have someone state who they are (jr – no disrespect) and the fact that they work for the BBC.
I’m sure most contributors to this site will look forward to having you as an interlocutor. If you have the time that is?
For what it’s worth I’m a retired policeman amonst other things and my name is Andy.
Militarily, the assault failed …
It didn’t ‘fail’ as such, it was crushed. The VC were no longer an effective fighting force following it.
… but it was a huge psychological blow for the Americans and their allies and eroded political support for the then president, Lyndon Johnson…
The utter defeat of the Tet Offensive wasn’t the blow, because the public was comprhensively and systematically lied to by the media. The lies told by the media about it turned public opinion against the war.
Nick Reynolds
My point is, whilst that BBC statement isn’t wholly and completely off beam, a journalist should be aware of the importance of precision of language. That statement wasn’t wholly an untruth, but it cannot be described as accurate either.
Mr Reynolds,
That paragraph is not untrue in any respect. However the article as a whole, particularly its headline and introductory paragraph (which are the only things that many will read, as I am sure you are aware) give a misleading impression.
Let me make an analogy. I have read umpteen BBC articles saying that “jihad” does not necessarily mean war but can also mean “striving to be a better Muslim.” (Note to commenters: if you wish to discuss whether this is correct, please do so on the open thread or better yet on your own blogs.) If any occasion comes up where a Muslim speaker says “jihad” and it is clear that he or she has the peaceful meaning in mind (and on some occasions where it is not so clear as well!) the BBC will add an explanation in two seconds flat. Coming back to this case, it was instantly clear to anyone who knew a little bit about the Vietnam war what he meant by the comparison to the Tet offensive. It may well have been a rebuke to you guys, the media. But you get scarcely a whisper of that from the article. The pitch of the article is “He admits it: Iraq is another Vietnam.” The more sophisticated paragraph – actually the sentence – you cite comes a fairly long way down, after lots of stuff about “one of the bloodiest months”, and no one who doesn’t already know will get what he meant.
The story picks up immediately on the Vietnam aspect of the remark but not at all on the election aspect of the remark. There is a gratuitous mention of the Republicans facing defeat next month – but no analysis of what Bush actually talked about, which is that the terrorists seek to influence the US election by killing people. Nor is there any discussion of the point made both by me in the post and by Jim Miller above – that it was Cronkite et al wrongly calling the offensive a victory for the NVA and a disaster for the South Vietnamese and Americans that caused the Tet offensive to be a strategic victory despite being a tactical loss. This isn’t an obscure, non-obvious omission. It is the omission of the main point Bush was making.
Richard Dawkins, not always a favourite of mine to put it mildly, got my sympathy when he complained of selective microphones. He said that it was amazing how whenever some evolutionary scientist said something that could possibly be whipped up into a story saying EVOLUTION DISPROVED!!! suddenly the sleepy heads in the audience snapped up and it would be in the papers next morning. In the same way, whenever anyone drops any word that might possibly fit into the IRAQ WAR WRONG, SO THERE HUTTON!!! template it’s just amazing how heads snap up.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Camp/7624/Generals/giap.htm
“In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.
By 1968, NVA morale was at it’s lowest point ever. The plans for “Tet” ’68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet ’68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.
At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet ’68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained access to the Embassy–there were some VC who had been killed on the grassy lawn, but they hadn’t gained access. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.”
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799
“The photograph, displayed in a room dedicated to foreign activists who contributed to the Communist victory over America in the Vietnam War, shows Senator John Kerry being greeted by Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp
“As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, “our most significant success.””
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp
“Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others, had been, but had never been in Vietnam.
Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry’s testimony in 1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry gave credence to the claim that the war was fought primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of the poor, the young, or racial minorities.
The record shows something different, indicating that 86 percent of those who died during the war were white and 12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.”
You beat me to it, Natalie. The main headline on Radio Four news this morning was that Bush had accepted that Iraq was like Vietnam !
You could then listen to the detail and find that he’d said no such thing.
If there was a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel the BBC would open the report with “In a blow to President Bush’s foreign policy …”
Hi Nick Reynolds
The paragraph that is most obviously false is the first one :
President George W Bush has accepted that the surge in violence in Iraq may be equivalent to America’s traumatic experience in the Vietnam War
He didn’t accept anything of the kind, as the BBC’s own report (eventually) concedes. The comparison made by the journalist – with which Mr Bush was invited to agree – was not with “America’s traumatic experience in the Vietnam War” but with the Tet Offensive.
Although the article then makes some attempt to correct this error, the headline and the opening paragraph feed directly into the left wing meme that “Iraq is another Vietnam” and attempt to show Mr Bush at last conceding his political opponents’ point. Mr Bush’s point was precisely the opposite – “This enemy offensive in Iraq may be another Tet Offensive” – ie a crushing military defeat for the enemy, spun as defeat by the left, and liable to lead to actual defeat if the US public loses its nerve.
The BBC World Service was pushing the Bush story as the story about every 15 minutes today.
However I discovered a BBC site that puts it into perspective Worldwide, most popular stories now
Currently (it changes) the top 5 are:
* 1. Experts create invisibility cloak
* 2. Baghdad security plan ‘failing’
* 3. Kazakh invite for Borat creator
* 4. Oslo gay animal show draws crowds
* 5. Hundreds gather at Hunter funeral
Except in Africa (*4. Bush accepts Iraq-Vietnam echoes) no region seems the least interested. At no point was this story the most read today.
As biased and obsessive as the BBC is when it comes Iraq what do they have to do to persuade even BBC readers that this story, full of maybe’s and couldbe’s is what they should give a damn about?
Welcome Nick.
Another major problem with the story is that most people under the age of 40 have probably never heard of the Tet offensive and only associate Vietnam with American defeat.
Deegee
The most emailed article is allways the most tabloid.
I was laughing at the “#1 Man forced to marry goat” for weeks.
The BBC has a back catalogue of leftist shibboleths dutifully quoted at what are considered to be appropriate moments. The comparison with Vietnam, the ‘quagmire’, is one of them, but this is finally being given the blog-led examination which should have been carried out by those who claim to be journalists.
Another one is ‘McCarthyism’, screamed by any lefty who meets opposition. But wait a minute! The KGB’s archives prove beyond any doubt that, if anything, Joe McCarthy understated the actual number of Russian spies in the US government and supporting bodies, and that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were guilty. Now, with them playing the Vietnam card, this can be trumped by a review of the treacherous role of the MSM in removing what should have been an American victory from the record books, and not forgetting the resultant misery for millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians. Let’s look more closely at Cronkite et al.
I hate to seem churlish (ok, I don’t really) but can we expect a return visit from Mr Reynolds?
Or was his (as so often seems to be the case with BBC commentators here) merely a fleeting visit, hoping to score a quick point: followed by a hurried retreat when he realises he is out of his depth? ?
OT I know but AL-BEEB are back with their islam-promoting news agenda. Dhimmi of the moment Mark Simpson writes this simpering review of the woman who wears 7th Century dress as a mark of her political islamism…..
“By Mark Simpson
BBC North of England correspondent
Teaching assistant Aishah Azmi, who has caused a stir for refusing to take off her veil during lessons, has a determined and focused character.
Ms Azmi is still suspended from her teaching assistant job
She is small in stature, but big on principle.
The Cardiff-born support teacher is unfazed by the national – and international – attention paid to her refusal to take off her veil when working with male colleagues.”
Would Al-BBC call a BNP member fired from his job for his beliefs “big on principle” ? Did they describe Nick Griffin as having a “determined and focused character” ? The leftist-islamist alliance in the Corporation have given up any attempt at pretending they are objective as far as islam is coincerned. What we are seeing now is outright propaganda as they see the public mood swinging against the falsely named “Religion Of Peace.”
With 96% of the nation opposed to Al-Beebs view….it’s just another nail in their coffin……
They are so DUMB!!!….and why don’t they back the Majority view???…..
We do notice these things…you know?.. lol
The definitive BBC contribution to the Bush/Tet story may be heard on the Today program R4 just after 8.30.
Interview John Pilger.
From Pilger we hear that Bush probably doesn’t know where Tet is and that America has 5 secret bases in Vietnam – yes VIETNAM!!!- to further its plans in the Middle East.
Looks like the magic mushroom crop has been particularly good this Autumn…
“GCooper:
I hate to seem churlish (ok, I don’t really) but can we expect a return visit from Mr Reynolds”
Personally I am glad to Nick contribute and hope we hear more from him. There is nothing like good healthy debate and this discussion in particular is very interesting.
I hate to seem churlish (ok, I don’t really) but can we expect a return visit from Mr Reynolds?
Or was his (as so often seems to be the case with BBC commentators here) merely a fleeting visit, hoping to score a quick point: followed by a hurried retreat when he realises he is out of his depth? ?
GCooper | 20.10.06 – 2:44 am
Third alternative: He is innocent of any malice aforethought but doesn’t know much about blog debate and thinks that everyone just plonks one comment down and moves on.
It will be a bit strange if he doesn’t come back since he did frame his comment in question form -though I suppose it could have been just rhetorical.
“doesn’t know much about blog debate and thinks that everyone just plonks one comment down and moves on”
if he knew anything about blog debate he’d just make the same comment about Israel v Palestine 974,327,821 times with slightly different phrasing.
hoho
John Prescott’s Tiny Pianist | 20.10.06 – 8:53 am
I don’t usually listen to the socialism today programme but I did hear parts of it this morning. I was particularly troubled by the interview with pilger. When he made the disobliging reference to Bush how they laughed – and so smugly. Even noghtee joined in (no doubt he was laughing on behalf of old labour).
I thought what a contrast between a man who graduated from Harvard, became a jet pilot, Governor of Texas and then elected and re-elected President of the USA and another man whose credibility is so negative that his name has become a byword for crooked journalism.
See wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger
He has been subjected to much criticism, with Auberon Waugh in Britain coining the verb ‘to pilger’ to denote ‘to present information in a sensationalist manner to reach a foregone conclusion’. The verb was also added to the 1991 edition of Oxford English Dictionary of New Words ([1]), but revoked in 1994 following complaints by Pilger.
No wonder word is getting around that the beeb’s journalism is sub-standard.
@ John Prescott’s Tiny Pianist:
Please, please tell me that that phuckw1t Jon Pilgerov really said Bush didn’t know “where” Tet was.
Finding Tet on a map would be exceedingly difficult because as any fule kno, Tet is not a place, but a season:-
“The operations are called the Tet Offensive as they were timed to begin on the night of January 30•31, 1968, Tết Nguyên Đán (the lunar new year day).”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive)
With his big lefty brain, I’m sure Pilgerov could easily find Christmas, Bastille Day and the August Bank Holiday Monday on an atlas of the world. I mean if Tet’s a place, so are all of those.
LOL.
the_camp_commandant | 20.10.06 – 10:22 am
Look CC, don’t blame me. I’m only passing on those incisive appreciations of world affairs granted to us by that giant of journalism, John Pilger. Maybe Tet is where the Yanks keep all these secret Vietnamese bases that so threaten the middle east. It must be true because Pilger is such a reporting icon.
In April 2006, John Pilger addressed the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University, New York, in company with Seymour Hersh, Robert Fisk and Charles Glass.
http://www.johnpilger.com/
Pilger should get together with Fisk again. They can talk about Jesus being “born in Jerusalem” and whether Tet is hilly or flat.
joc writes:
“Personally I am glad to Nick contribute and hope we hear more from him. There is nothing like good healthy debate and this discussion in particular is very interesting.”
I wouldn’t disagree with you for a moment. It’s (at least in part) the BBC’s de haut en bas manner that is the cause of so much complaint.
If BBC staff were prepared to debate their assumptions and attitudes, Biased BBC possibly wouldn’t be so necessary.
However, experience here has shown that isn’t what tends to happen. Let’s hope this is an exception.
Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap said they would now go the limit because America’s resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete victory was within Hanoi’s grasp.
So, instead of surrendering and thereby saving millions of lives, the North decided to fight on. Thanks to the left wing media and the communist led anti war movement which was headed by John Kerry.
In fact, the North admit that both were essential to their strategy.
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam’s unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was “essential to our strategy.”
The left wing media and the left should be ashamed of themselves for the untold millions who died or were tortuted as a result of their treasonous actions.
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/05/vietnam-war-we-could-have-won.html
The left wing media and the communist led anti war movement are trying to do the same in Iraq.
I’m not sure what Tet is like, I’d have to look it up in Lonely Planet or something. I imagine it’s sort of boggy and wet – a quagmire as it were.
According to the Lancet, over 655,000 inhabitants of Tet died during the insurgency there in 1969.
Another authoritative study of casualties was carried by Auto Trader. Based on an analysis of the number of cars they saw multiplied by the people in them, Tet is a seaport. Jon Pilger is 52.
Pilger and his ilk have so bought into their own echo chambers of uncontested thinking that they become immediate targets for parody.
http://www.johnpilger.com/
“Originally launched in 1999, johnpilger.com grew quickly into one of the world’s largest libraries of the work of a single journalist and within a year was one of the most popular websites under the banner of Britain’s Independent Television Network (ITV).”
world’s largest libraries of the work of a single journalist ???
No wonder Pilger “knows where Tet is”. He has been so stuck up his own ass these past 35 years that it would be incredible if he knew where anywhere was …
OT
the_camp_commandant Did you know that Auto Trader is part of the trust that owns Al-Grau’niad?
Auto Trader makes a profit and subsidises the loss making collectivist rag that opposes cars and travel for the little people.
The Today programme was banging on about this, this morning, even before they got to John Pilger. Listen to the 0717 slot :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
It’s worth noting Jim Naughtie’s intro pretty much in full, because it clearly sets out the meme that we are supposed to be buying – specifically that comparing Vietnam with Iraq is about painting Iraq as “another costly and futile foreign involvement” :
“..for many years the White House has been saying that Iraq isn’t Vietnam, that the American people aren’t looking at another costly and futile foreign involvement that things will be different this time, it was the comparison that couldn’t speak its name. So it was something of a surprise to Americans when President Bush in an ABC interview the other day appeared to acknowledge that Iraq and Vietnam were comparable in at least one respect, that violence in contemporary Iraq could be seen as similar to the once famous Viet Cong Tet offensive of January 1968…”
The only “surprise” involved is that Mr Naughtie (an intelligent chap) doesn’t seem to understand that Bush is comparing the electoral spin quotients of the two events not the military situations. They do then actually play the President’s comment, and you can hear that he is laughing when he adds that there’s an election coming up.
We also get an expert introduced as “Lawrence Korb is a writer on defence issues, he is also a former Assistant Defence Secretary under Ronald Reagan and a Vietnam veteran” from which one would naturally assume that he is likely to be sympathetic to Mr Bush (and so you would be particularly swayed by his criticism of Bush’s policy – candid friend and so on)…so long as you don’t know anything about Lawrence Korb. He was indeed an Assistant Defence Secretary under Ronald Reagan, but he had a very public bust up with the Reagan administration in 1986. He is a long standing anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war pundit, who works for a left wing pro-Democrat think tank, and who has utterly reliable opinions for a progressive media outlet like the BBC.
And then for balance the report finishes with George Stephanopoulos’s views.
“Militarily, the assault failed but it was a huge psychological blow for the Americans and their allies, and eroded political support for the then president, Lyndon Johnson.”
In what way are we being inaccurate here? Is the above paragraph untrue?
In order for this paragraph to be accurate, or true, it would have to read something like this: “Militarily, the assault failed but when the international press mistakenly reported it as a victory it was a huge psychological blow for the Americans and their allies, and eroded political support for the then president, Lyndon Johnson.”
Since political support would not have eroded at this time if the press had reported it as the US military victory it actually was, it is self serving and inaccurate to leave this information out.
John Prescott’s Tiny Pianist,
I can’t find the interview with the Pilgerer.
AntiCitizenOne:
It should be in the 8.30am bit with Daniel Fried.
I have now. It’s amazing the difference in tone of the interview.
Although I will say that the Pilgerer said he didn’t think GWB had HEARD of the Tet offensive, rather than know where it was.
From Pilger we hear that Bush probably doesn’t know where Tet is
:lol::lol::lol:
Pilger probably can’t find Pancake Day on the map either!
But has a good idea of the whereabouts of Ramadan (West Yokshire)
The Pilger interview is now available on the Today website http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_tet_20061020.ram
On re-listening I feel I should correct my earlier assumption about the whereabouts of Tet. Pilger in fact said BUSH didn’t know where HE was, although bearing in mind that GW was at the time in the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington AFB I imagine the signs on the Gulf Freeway as he drove to work might have given him a clue.
We can also clarify the American ‘stay behind’ operation in Vietnam where Pilger attests to 14 !!! secret bases in that country which he is keeping a careful eye on.
Anyone wanting to verify the above can find the segment at about 5 minutes into the download but will search in vain for mention of black helicopters, The Bermuda Triangle,Area 51……
I’ve got to say that Pilger says Bush has not heard of the Tet Offensive, not that he does not know where it is.
The Vultures of Vietnam
Matt Frei’s got a discussion going on this…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/
Our posts crossed, pianist. The 14 bases thing must be a mistake, saying Vietnam for Iraq. But no one picked him up for it.
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have just reread the story and it includes the following quote:
“The White House later sought to clarify Mr Bush’s comments.
“The full context was that the comparison was about the propaganda waged in the Tet Offensive…and the president was reiterating something he’s said before – that the enemy is trying to shake our will,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement.”
On balance I think this story is broadly accurate and does include the point you make about a properganda war.
I can assure you that BBC staff in my experience do spend rather a lot of time debating, discussing and examining both their stories and their attitudes. I suspect that no News organisation in the world agonises about impartiality as much as we do. Which doesn’t mean we get everything right all of the time of course.
Shiite militia takes over Iraqi city
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AgODPoWwsfGjc7NxqwU
Read the AP report before the Beeb manage to lose all the important details…
UK may return to Iraq crisis city
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6070104.stm
xeSVvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-
Natalie,
We concur.
Pilger says Vietnam for Iraq twice which, bearing in mind his criticism of Bush, is ironic to say the least.
What isn’t ironic is that the whole interview is an opinion piece that adds nothing to the debate. The ‘Vietnamese’ bases are taken at face value, whatever country they’re supposed to exist in. Bush’s ignorance are accepted as a ‘given’. At no point is Pilger asked to justify his statements.
The question has to be asked. What was the point of the interview? It could only have been broadcast as an attack on the US in general and the President in particular. It had no other content.
Is this the BBC’s vaunted mission to ‘educate & inform’?
If so, we have at least learnt that Pilger is a confused, sloppy & partisan journalist.