Anyone catch Foreign Secretary William “Lost his Mojo” Hague on the BBC this morning? Here is the interview in case you missed it. The sneering tone used by Humphrys is no big surprise and Hague did all he could do dodge around the elephant traps being set. But in a way that is what annoys me. Hague felt obliged to repeatedly swear fealty to the “world’s highest moral authority ” – the UN. Hague also felt obliged to repeat that the Arab League was in support of the action when in fact they are taking two contradictory positions, one for domestic and one for foreign consumption. So we have a British Government giving supplication the corrupt UN and running with Arab League sentiment. So the BBC slowly but surely shifts the right leftwards and the right obliges.I know that this Libyan situation is very tricky and I appreciate that Hague must feel like he is standing on quicksand when in the lair of the BBC but sometimes I just wish he would tell Humphrys a few home truths.
HAGUE IN THE DOCK!
Bookmark the permalink.
I was willing Hague to say to Humphrys “Are you seriously asking me to endanger our pilots’ lives by divulging on national radio our intended targets in this conflict?”. Instead of being polite about it.
Why he didn’t, I simply can’t comprehend.
“Why he didn’t, I simply can’t comprehend.”
And why didn’t he imply – or, better, clearly state – that if the Arab League doesn’t like the way we are imposing a no-fly zone, the members of the AL have got sufficient hardware to do it on their own and they are welcome to so do? At the same time Hague could have condemned the mendacity of that “peace-loving” criminal thugocracy, Russia, in its condemnation of the allied air forces.
BTW I couldn’t but admire the BBC setting the tone for the Hague interview by having Alan Little (I think, but whoever was reporting from Tripoli) referring at length to the broad mass of innocent civilians in Tripoli who just want to keep their heads down until it’s all over. This is true but is, of course, true in all civil wars/disturbances. However if, according to the BBC narrative, whatever the West does is bound to cause (unnecessary) collateral damage then any involvement, even authorised by God’s representatives on earth (the UN), is off-limits.
OTOH, a BBC outright condemnation of this venture is not on the cards because He – the President of the US, not God (although to the BBC there’s not much difference) – has authorised the use of the might of the US in this venture. Mind you, whether it all goes pear-shaped or is a stunning success, I’m sure Mark Mardell will inform us that Obama was right all along.
In contrast, on the same INBBC programme: Marr’s political imtimacy with Chakrabarti –
“Shami Chakrabarti: critical of action against Libya, but silent about Saif Gadaffi’s donation”Andrew Marr fails to raise awkward issue with Shami Chakrabarti of Saif Gadaffi’s cash for the London School of Economics”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/8393903/Shami-Chakrabarti-critical-of-action-against-Libya-but-silent-about-Saif-Gadaffis-donation.html
Whenever Chakrabati (or Marr) venture out into public they should have rotten fruit chucked at them.
Hague could have walked all over Humphreys this morning (moral authority, legality, decisive action, overthrow of a tyrant, as yet no setbacks) but didn’t.
A curious performance from Hague, with Humphreys buzzing round him like an annoying fly.
Anybody think Humphreys rehearsed his Freudian slip about Iraq? Me neither, but you can see the Beeboids donning the Iraq spectacles to look at Libya.
I thought Hague acquited himself rather well.
I’ve been fighting a rearguard action in defence of Humphrys for a wee while now – he’s testing my patience increasingly of late.
John – I know you think that in hounding the politicos like this you think that you are speaking for the GBP, but every now and then you have to cut them a bit of slack. FFS.
Roland – Spot on, Hague didn’t exactly help himself. What’s the matter with him recently?
Hague has gone into his shell ever since it was suggested he was having a homosexual relationship with his aide.
He’s still looking for his “Mojo”, whatever that may be…
“It’s behind you, Willy…”
Do not forget that the Cameron/Cleggoron mantra is that the BBC is good, very good. It must be so as that paragon of non conservative values, Patten has been appointed to lead the scum. Additionally Cam., Hague, Patten, Clegg et all are all fully paid up members of the EU lovers society, just like the BBC.
INBBC’s hypocrisy on issues Islam, including Libya (cont’d):
11 April 1980.
Please, INBBC, remind us about what happened on the above date in London, to Mohammed Ramadan, who was a Libyan Muslim, and BBC Arabic Section presenter, and who was apparently a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir*.
Wasn’t he assassinated by two of Gaddafi’s agents outside Regent Park mosque? And weren’t they imprisoned for life in September, 1980?
* For INBBC:
“Jihadist group a threat to us all ”
(by Melanie Phillips)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/jihadist-group-a-threat-to-us-all/story-e6frg6zo-1225888223710
<!– google_ad_section_end(name=story_headline) –>
Someone needs to send a memo to Conservative Party HQ. It should simply read:
“Do not waste your time, the BBC will criticise you whatever you do. Do not play their game – sink your teeth into them and expose them”
I am now confused on the beebs position on this. It was okay when it received Obama’s blessing because he had let the interntaional community take up the reins. But now we seem to see that the Arabs aren’t happy with the delivery of what they called for. So does this now mean that Obama didn’t actually have his finger on the pulse as the BBC claimed? Does it mean that this NFZ is nothing to do with Obama (which would mean he was sitting on his hands counter to what the Beeb were saying).
Does this now mean that the BBC preferred position was indiscriminate slaughter of civilians as carried out by Gadaffi’s forces as opposed to what we have here of more targeted attacks unfortunately catching up some (but fewer) civilians in this?
Seems the BBC want to have ideas and make decisions but distance themselves from the consequences. That’s nice that is. Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that. They should ask their friends, Nick, Vince, Ed & Ed about how that approach works out.
> So the BBC slowly but surely shifts the right leftwards
It would be difficult to shift Hague any more to the left. Remember this is the guy who gave a speech last September saying “Climate change is perhaps the 21st century’s biggest foreign policy challenge”. “An effective response to climate change underpins our security and prosperity”.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1869848/william-hagues-climate-change-speech
This is why the FO were caught so flat-footed by developments in the Middle East: They were all working on non-solutions to the non-problem of climate change.
What an utter, utter berk. The man’s no Conservative. That’s for sure.
Sadly, there seems to be little left of the conservative party.
The sad and rather pathetic lightweight remnants have been aimlessly free-wheeling about in a fairly ineffectual manner for well over a decade now.
Why is the BBC allowed to pretend that there were no UN resolutions against Sadaam, but this attack on Libya is somehow kosher because they passed just one this time? And the US President is sending troops into war without asking Congress for authorization, which is not legal. This is far less legal (according to the internationalist definition) than Iraq, yet the BBC and even Cowboy Dave are saying that this is somehow different.
DP
Since this has got the backing of the Arab League (well, the talk – not the action natch), this resolution is “halal” rather than “kosher” so, of course, it’s OK with the BBC
Hah, good point! 😀
I agree that Humphries was acting as disgracefully as he always does to Conservative politicians, but, to disagree with the consensus on here, I thought Hague comfortably dealt with him. Humphries could not get Hague to concede anything.
Compare and contrast this Fox News report:
EXCLUSIVE: Libyans Use Journalists as Human Shields
An attack on the compound of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby, Fox News has learned.
British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya’s Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields.
With this from the BBC:
Gaddafi ‘not targeted’ by allied strikes
Libyan government spokesman Ibrahim Musa said the strike had targeted an “administrative building”.
Allied forces carrying out air strikes in Libya say Colonel Muammar Gaddafi himself is not a target, despite an overnight attack against his compound.
And what about those journalists, BBC?
In Tripoli, Col Gaddafi’s sprawling Bab al-Aziziya complex was hit. Western journalists taken to the compound were shown a ruined building.
An official from one of the coalition countries, who asked not to be named, told journalists the strike had destroyed Col Gaddafi’s “command and control capability”.
Nothing whatsoever here or on any of the other pages in this Libya section mention that the attackes were curtailed because of it. And you know that one of those journalists from “other organizations” the Fox News report alluded to is the BBC’s Allan Little. He even says he was there a couple hours before the bombing itself. I notice also that the photo of the destroyed structure accompanying Little’s report is not credited to another news organization or Getty or whatever. So that was taken by another Beeboid human shield.
You mean we had the chance to get rid of both Libyan targets and crew from Reuters, CNN and various other left-dominated disinformation organisations, and we passed on it?
That really is a shame.
So, not only with its political propaganda, but now with its physical presence, INBBC gets in the way and handicaps NFZ actions in Tripoli area. INBBC, like LSE, goes cap in hand to Gaddafis.
Masses of INBBC ‘reporters’, more than any other broadcaster, are spending our money all over the Islamic areas of the Middle East and North Africa, encouraging ‘popular revolution’ which turn out to be Muslim Brotherhood hardening of Sharia law.
GET OUT OF THE WAY, INBBC!
LIBYA.
INBBC ‘Newsnight’ Paxman had on political chum, and representative of no one, old Bari ATWAN; this Atwan –
“Abdel Bari Atwan, Hatred, Lies and LSE“
Mr Humphrys his usual bumptious, hectoring self. He really is an A1 scumbag.
One got the sense as the interview got underway that what has got his clock ticking is the dread the Coalition government might record a success in this.
In any military interdiction of this nature the aim is to disrupt the command and control structure of the enemy which inherently means whacking Gaddafi if circumstances allow. Of course Hague isn’t going to specifically state this knowing the wantonly irresponsible use an extremely partisan broadcaster like Humphrys will put it to to the detriment of our armed forces in the field.
Here we had Humphrys putting western military action on the front burner 23rd Feb and Con Coughlin in the Telegraph commenting on the irony of ‘John Humphrys, that renowned opponent of the Iraq War’, doing this.
OT
Your tax dollars funding a second left wing radio network: the BBC
As Republicans try to defund NPR, the Obama administration laughs in the face of critics and sends US taxpayer moneys to fund Britain’s left wing BBC. Ben Dowell of the UK Guardianwrites:
The BBC World Service is to receive a “significant” sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/your_tax_dollars_funding_a_sec.html
OMFG. Now it’s my tax dollars hard at work helping BBC World Propaganda? Well played, Mark Thompson, well played.
Literally pay-back time. The BBC has invested thousands of British tax-payers’ pounds on Obama’s campaigns and now Obama is giving some of it back – but not to the British tax-payer but to the Britsh arm of the Democrat Party’s propaganda machine.
Surely the BBC isn’t allowed to accept money from foreign governments?
What crap priorities. If it’s going to be for fighting China, I’d prefer the President to spend that money on cyberwarfare, protecting key systems from more attacks by the Chinese Army hackers, and maybe even helping Gmail prevent more cyber attacks from the Chinese, plus a little payback if possible. Helping the World Service is about the wettest form of cyber war I can think of, and provides the least amount of direct help to US interests. Which, I suppose, isn’t a surprise.
INBBC editor, Jon Williams, sounds like an apologist for Islam and Gaddafi here:
“International reporters are not free to move around Tripoli – even before the start of the air assault by Britain, France and the United States, the BBC team needed Libyan ‘minders’ to leave the hotel. In recent days, they’ve not been around – this morning, on Twitter, one of my colleagues in Tripoli likened it to serving a prison sentence, albeit one with a fancy hamam.
“During yesterday’s Commons debate on Libya, the prime minister paid tribute to the bravery of the British journalists in Libya. But he also suggested that those reporting from Tripoli were reporting under what he called ‘very, very strong reporting restrictions’.
“While it’s true that we can’t see everything we want, we can say whatever we want.”
So INBBC’s Williams admonishes the British PM in the course of claiming: “we” [INBBC]”can say whatever we want”(in Libya).
No, you can’t, Mr Williams. INBBC people cannot say things like:
a.) Sharia law is immoral and should be abolished;
b.) Libya is ruled by a blood-thirsty dictator who is a mass murderer of Lockerbie;
c.) Gaddafi is lying about history to say that the Crusaders were not the defenders of Christians in the Middle East who suffered centuries of torture and murder at the hands of Muslims.
But, of course, INBBC people don’t want to say such things, such is their abject self-censorship on matters Islam.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/