Obama made his big speech last night and the BBC do their best to put the best spin of it today. Mark Mardell salivates over him here. Love the way Mardell allows Obama to run with the pretence that he is “only now” turning his gaze to sorting out the US economy. How about an objective analysis of Obama’s record on economic revival from the BBC?
OBAMAWORSHIP
Bookmark the permalink.
Mark Lardarse as well as being up his own considerably large anus,is also stuck up Obama’s poo pipe as well
that’s one of the quaifications to work at dhimmi corp……..
being stuck up some other mans rectum 😉
I never thought the BBC could get a bigger pair of twats that Justin Webb or Matt Frei, but boy does Mardell outdo them both.
I like how Mardell was keeping such close score that he was able to note that “two fifths” of the speech was devoted to the economy. But I also note that Mardell had no problem whatsoever with the President turning what was supposed to be an announcement about Iraq and praise for the troops into yet another partisan policy speech. Pretty crass, but Mardell and the BBC seem not to have noticed.
And of course: Spot the Missing Word.
Check out the comments from US media the BBC rounded up:
Obama’s Iraq speech: what they’re saying
All sources from the Left, not a single non-Left voice, never mind one from the right. There’s also another shared characteristic. The first two sources are JournoListas, and the other three are from Left-leaning publications infested with JournoListas. Since not even half the names on the JournoList haven’t been revealed, and no more have dared admit they were on it (even though it’s supposed to be no big deal), it’s quite likely that at least one of these other sources was on it as well.
Mardell : “And now for a totally unbiased response to The One’s speech, let’s turn to a bunch of Journolistas”
How about an objective analysis of [anything] from the BBC?
LOL
I don’t think the US citizens are fooled
they want the tosser removed from office at the earliest
America is too geographically large and politically diverse to be raped with the Left’s agenda like we are here with the BBC. That’s why they’re not fooled.
We certainly can be and have been raped by such an agenda, but it’s because the vast majority of our media is full of Democrat supporters, and far-Left ones at that. Fortunately, we do not have an official national broadcaster, with which the populace has a special, unique relationship spanning generations, so we have ways to overcome it.
Yesterday wasn’t B-BBC moaning that the BBC was anti-American to the core?
Your point?
The BBC hates middle class white Americans.
Obama is about as anti-American as you can get. QED, numbnuts.
You think Obama represents America? To the bbc he is almost as good as a starving African brutalised by white colonialists – the fact that he is a half-caste is a bit embarassing for the bbc of course, but they generously overlook his half-whiteness!
I felt nauseous listening to to description of the speech, ‘plain…determined…brisk’
The triumph of sugar over diabetes.
Mark Urban was not happy that the President didn’t declare Iraq a defeat and disaster.
So it was curious last night to hear President Obama – formerly such a vociferous opponent of the war, and indeed of Gen Petraeus’s surge strategy that finally delivered results – speak of victory. Of course his speech writers could argue that he did not use it in a way that claimed it for US forces or that mimicked the awful mistake of whoever wrote the “Mission Accomplished” banner that hung behind President Bush in May 2003.
What the speech did however was to use the word “victory” in a speech marking the end of US combat operations in such a way that his people would hear it, but at the same time would allow the White House truthfully to say “we never declared victory”.
At least he didn’t lie about who said “Mission Accomplished”, like Gavin Esler did last night. But he is clearly coming from the perspective that Iraq is a lost cause, a defeat. Then there’s this:
It is true of course that as commander in chief, President Obama had to say positive things about the sacrifices made in Iraq. He had to leave his people feeling something good had come out of that violent maelstrom. In this sense his speech was genuinely statesmanlike in that it explicitly buried earlier partisan differences.
Urban is saying that the President is merely pandering to foolish United Statesians. It must be driving him crazy to see his beloved Obamessiah behave this way. Then he reveals more of his personal bias:
Indeed, President Obama even managed to be generous about his predecessor, noting his commitment to America’s armed forces and security.
This is generous? I guess it is if one defines “generous” as not harshly criticizing and allowing that Bush might be human and not as evil as the BBC thinks.
Today, in an era of non-state actors, insurgency, and asymmetric warfare the key difference is not in the declarations of victory. Indeed it might be argued that everybody now insists they’ve won – constantly – as part of information warfare.
However finely crafted the speech, even President Obama attempted that yesterday, by suggesting that the US had put the Iraqis on the path to victory. The real difference between today and 1945 is that nobody concedes defeat.
And there is Urban’s personal opinion summed up. It was a loss for the US, and the President is only playing it up for show, no more credible than Al Qaeda claiming victory. He’s most upset at the suggestion that Iraq might turn out to be okay. Too bad.
Mardell’s eminent journo-genius leads him to the conclusion that “If he can not turn it [his message on the economy] in to reality then things will get very sticky on the home front.”
I’ve got news for you, Beeboids – it’s stuck:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7973446/Republicans-take-largest-ever-midterm-lead.html