Commenter “pounce” pointed out this story:
Government hails Saddam verdict
The UK government has welcomed the conviction by a Baghdad court of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.
In the story we hear the views of Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, Home Secretary John Reid, Anas Altikriti, spokesman of the British Muslim Initiative, Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond and Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain.
The headline does not accurately describe the story, as it covers the reactions to Saddam’s sentence expressed by the opposition parties as well as the reaction of the government, but one gets the general point: it is the reaction of Parliament. However Anas Altikriti and Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari were not elected by anyone. While their reaction is certainly newsworthy, it shows the BBC’s communalist mindset that these unelected representatives – whose claim to “represent” even people of their own faith is far from universally acknowledged – are interspersed between the elected leaders of the Liberal Democrat and Scottish Nationalist parties as if all were in the same category.
Anyone called Al-Tikriti is liable to be upset by Saddam’s fate, as that is his Tribal/Clan name – he’s a Relative, no matter how distant (and even distant ones count in Iraq).
US elections – HA HA HA HA HA.
Goodbye Bush, goodbye Rumsfeld, goodbye neo-Cons, you have been a disaster and your time is up!
No go away, put your own house in order and stop criticising the BBC for accuratley and steadfastly highlighting your failings.
Donald
Senate stands with 49 Republicans and 50 Democrats, so there will be no bye bye. Bush is still the president so you will have to hold your liberal rants until the next election.
Democracy and a system of checks and balances says HA HA to you.
And FYI, freedom is also a right we enjoy, so we will continue to criticize the BBC for being the biased scum they are.
I’m still waiting on the proof of the 655 000 civilian deaths in Iraq, or do you call that GUESTIMATION “accurate and steadfast reporting.”
Sheers to the US system, democracy and freedom still work on the West. Not so sure with the BBC’s “Have Your Say” comments though, maybe you are the type that advocates for censorship of opinion like the BBC.
You sound rather desperate, Donald. FYI most of the new “Democrats” are actually as right -wing if not more so than the Republicans they defeated. The vote wasn’t pro-democrat (after all the Dems don’t have a platform on any subject) but was anti-Bush. Many Republicans think he isn’t conservative enough and his failings on controlling the border and on not winning in Iraq
came back to haunt him. Most of the State level ammendments such as making English the official language and other conservative measures all passed with resounding numbers. The USA isn’t moving left – something you and al-bbc will have to get used to.
Diana | 08.11.06 – 10:20 pm
The BBC has never claimed an Iraq death-toll of 655,000. Indeed, the BBC has no view on the matter.
What the BBC has done is to report various conflicting estimates.
The 655,000 you cite comes from the Johns Hopkins University in the US.
http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2006/16oct06/16iraq.html
John,
On the night that the Lancet published their report containing the figures from the Hopkins University survey, I recall that John Simpson was in the studio and was asked about how accurate the 655,00 figure actually was. You’re correct in asserting that he indeed did say that the numbers were estimates • ranging from a lower figure (which I believe was in the 300,000 mark) to the highest estimate (somewhere close to million.)
However, Simpson was asked what HE believed the true figure was and he was happy enough to pronounce that his best estimate was 500,000.
Was Simpson asked in a personal capacity as to his views, or was he asked as the BBC’s World Affairs Editor?
The level of casualties in Iraq • especially for those like myself who supported, and still support, the Bush/Blair decision to invade • have been far, far more than anticipated and a grim reminder of what terrible responsibilities we ask our politicians to take on our behalf.
What I find most concerting about some of the BBC’s reporting is their selectivity. For instance, on the night is that they chose to lead the news with the highly-controversial Lancet report, significant progress had been made in the Iraqi Parliament towards agreeing a genuine Federal structure in the country as set out in the democratically-agreed Constitution.
The BBC chose to ignore it. Which, for an organisation which claims to have an interest in the fate of that nation (witness their twice-used tactic of having a week-long series of news broadcasts beginning with the latest casualty figures) was quite shameful.
Good point, Steve E. It’s al-bbc’s selectivity in reporting that most shows up their internal bias.
For instance al-bbc online are all over the alledged killing of 18 “palestinians” in the gaza strip (they have interviews, quotes from neighbours, “on site” reports from al-beeb hacks, a piece on the thankless task of being an ambulance driver in Gaza) yet when dozens of Israelis are blown up in suicide bombings the reports are minimal. Compare, as well, the slaughter of 60 or more refugees in Darfur recently – again, barely covered by al-beeb yet any deaths caused by Israel and they show a ghoulish enthusiasm in giving it as much exposure as possible.
JR-
“The BBC has never claimed an Iraq death-toll of 655,000. Indeed, the BBC has no view on the matter.”
So coy are we John….
If indeed the Beeb had no view on the subject,then why give the piece the “headline treatment”?