Sorry I’m a little late in getting to this, but life intrudes occasionally. I saw this the day it was posted, but didn’t have time to deal with it until now. BBC US President editor blogged about Libya and the death of Gaddafi. And it’s classic Mardell in full acolyte mode.
Gaddafi killed: A new kind of US foreign policy success
“Wow”, said Hilary Clinton as she was handed a Blackberry with the news out of Libya.
Gaddafi’s death will be a relief to President Obama and his administration. That’s on the fairly simple grounds that he backed NATO action, called for him to go, and now he’s gone.
Wait a second…..that’s not what I saw originally. I remember it well because I literally smacked my forehead, stood up, and walked away when I saw it. It’s the reason I went back to do this now. It appears that Mardell had a rethink and made a stealth edit. Fortunately, he can’t escape Google. The original post seems to be lost down the memory hole, but the opening line in question is still there:
The death of Col Gaddafi is a vindication of sorts for Barack Obama’s foreign policy, and the awkward US decision to ‘lead from behind’.
A vindication, eh? Killing Gaddafi in cold blood, without due process of law, is vindication of a foreign policy strategy? Did the BBC ever say that when Sadaam was put on trial by his own people, judged, convicted, and sentenced by his own people, that was a vindication of Bush’s foreign policy? I forget. What color is the sky on your planet, Mark? I wonder who told him to tone it down. But make no mistake: Mardell’s true thoughts were revealed in his original words. His beloved Obamessiah has been vindicated. Was it the not doing anything part that was vindicated, or the not having boots on the ground which led to a killing in cold blood without trial or due process of law that was the vindication? Yeah, whatever. Don’t bother wondering if we had put boots on the ground that Gaddafi might have been captured and granted his human rights, put on trial, etc. Nah. The Obamessiah knows best, regardless.
Has His Nobel Peace Prize been vindicated yet? FFS.
In any case, let’s recall the facts. Originally, the President didn’t want to get involved at all. In fact, He had to be dragged, practically kicking and screaming, into it. (There you go again, always wanting an unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead – ed.) At the time, of course, Mardell was trying to convince you that this was “deliberating”, not dithering. We know for a fact, however, that He really was dithering, and had to have reality shoved in His face before reluctantly agreeing to act (once again, Al Jazeera beats the BBC, eh? ) In fact, Sec. of State Clinton and her Department were complaining that it was basically amateur hour at the White House, and were thinking that the lights were on but nobody was at home. It’s also important to remember that the Libyan people themselves were asking for our help, and that Mardell himself was trying to big up The Obamessiah by saying that He felt a personal connection, an emotional attachment, to the Libyans’ cry for justice.
Okay, so back to the current post. Mardell explains that Gaddafi’s death will come as a relief to the President because that means the mission was a success. Naturally, what he really means is that ugly, barbaric United Statesians wanted him slotted, not that the President Himself would be so crass. But Mardell’s main point is that this represents the “Obama Doctrine”, of a less aggressive US. The fact that he has to then admit that we carried the main load of warmongering, and that the essential defeat of Gaddafi’s forces wouldn’t have been possible without US muscle is amusing, but then irritating because Mardell still maintains that it’s totally cool simply because we didn’t start it. I’ll leave it to others to explain how that makes sense, because I sure as hell can’t. Either we made it possible, or we didn’t, no?
Mardell’s main point here is that it’s a significant improvement over the Bush Cowboy years because the Muslims won’t view this as the nasty US imposing our will on the poor brown-skinned folk. There won’t be a generation of Libyans growing up the name “Barack”, I guess. He still sticks to his position that the President wanted to “lead from behind”, and not that He didn’t want to do anything at all. This is White House spin, and not the facts.
Let’s also recall now that Mardell himself was originally against taking action in Libya. He felt that the President frowning at Gaddafi would be sufficient, and tried to convince you that the President’s approach to this conflict was “very deliberate, very rigorous, rather academic.” It was a lie then, and it’s a lie now. The President didn’t want to do it, and had to be convinced by others to act. There’s a big difference between being unsure and trying to work it out and not wanting to do it, full stop. But Mardell constantly told you that the President was trying to figure it out anyway, and that only the uglier side of the US wanted to rush out, guns blazing.
In fact, Mardell was so against the notion that the US was going to save the day that at one point he even praised the President for making the UN relevant again. This is the same UN, mind, that’s now whining about how Gaddafi didn’t get his human rights affirmed before he was whacked. Who didn’t see that coming?
I won’t bother to get into a discussion about how US involvement was illegal anyway, because the President actually needed Congressional approval to send troops out in this case, where Libya wasn’t relevant to immediate US foreign policy and security needs, or that some people like St. Michael and St. Jon (Moore and Stewart) were displeased, as the BBC censored all of that. They’re both totally cool now because they support the Occupiers, so forget about old news that might make the President look bad.
Mardell continues his in blog post to reassure you that it’s great because the Libyans will think they did it themselves, and didn’t have it forced on them by Western Imperialists (he doesn’t use those terms, but that’s what he means). If that’s the case – if Gaddafi’s killing in cold blood vindicates that strategy – then why was it so great for the President to dither over it for weeks?
This is where it becomes clear that Mardell was spinning for Him the entire time. If the President’s plan the whole time was to bomb from afar and let the Libyans themselves do the heavy lifting on the ground, then why dither deliberate about whether or not to get involved? If “leading from behind” was the plan all along, why did He have to have His arm twisted to do it?
Even Mardell admits it, sort of:
In the end it was fear of being judged a moral failure that drove the decision.
Ah, yes. He wanted to be “on the right side of history”, right?
The president was told that thousands could die in a massacre in Benghazi and he wasn’t going to be held responsible for that.
Hell, even the odious, now departed, Matt Frei was worrying about that before Mardell was. And Mardell is still trying to tell you that this is a success story.
But if President Obama’s policy has been a success on its own terms, it leaves others in the US deeply worried. They don’t think their country should encourage, cajole, help and guide. They think it should lead – that it should be seen to lead in fact and in deed.
And if it doesn’t it is not clever – it is defeatist, and will inevitably lead to a diminution of power. They may raise their voices, not today, but when the dust settles.
It’s worth repeating: Forget that Sadaam was captured without harm, put on trial by his own people, and sentenced in a court of law by his own people, according to the laws of his own country. Mardell will hate that to his dying day, yet the cold-blooded killing of Gaddafi, without trail, without legal justice, is a success, a vindication, in his view. How twisted can you get?
In Mardell’s biased worldview, the President’s plan was a success, even if He didn’t actually have this plan and it was forced upon Him. Cold-blooded killing is vindication, whereas a trial according to the laws of the country concerned is Cowboy justice. No effort is spared at the BBC to praise Him and prove to you that He knows best.
We also get this;
He said it was impossible to tell who had fired the fatal bullet.
Meanwhile confusion has emerged over whether a full post-mortem had been performed on Col Gaddafi.
His body – and that of his son Mutassim, who was also killed on Thursday – have been placed in a meat storage facility in the city of Misrata.
The foreign affairs spokesman of Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC), Ahmed Gebreel, told the BBC the post-mortem was carried out on Saturday.
However a senior health official within the NTC, Nagy Barakat, said there was no need for such an examination as the cause of death had emerged from a pathologist’s report.
Mr Jibril added that it would be “absolutely OK” to carry out a full investigation under international supervision, as long as Islamic burial rules were respected.Sounds like it might have been Lee Harvey Oswald.
Gaddafi’s body is being kept in a meat storage locker, and a ‘full investigation’ can be carried out as long as Islamic burial rules are respected. ‘It’s not how you kill ’em, it’s how you bury ’em that counts’.
The burial has been delayed, amid uncertainty about what to do with the remains.
It is unclear whether the ex-leader will be buried in Misrata, in his hometown of Sirte, or elsewhere.
Continue reading the main storyOfficials from the NTC have said they want a secret burial to prevent any grave being turned into a shrine.
What happens to the meat locker?
Now as I recall in previous BBC articles on this conflict there were hundreds of thousands of Gaddafi supporters, and we all know how the BBC use carefully picked ‘sources’ to justify a particular line – so we get this Correspondents say few Libyans are worried about the manner of their former dictator’s humiliating end, which has been celebrated across the country. So presumably these ‘correspondents’ interviewed all the Libyans. And of course we’re expected to believe that any who disagreed with Gaddafi’s humiliating end are going to voice their disapproval now.
“Libya: The Arab Spring may yet turn to chilly winter”
(by Peter Oborne)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8843214/Libya-The-Arab-Spring-may-yet-turn-to-chilly-winter.html
In this recent article by the BBC on the subject; Muammar Gaddafi’s death: NTC commander speaks, it’s like the BBC want to touch all the bases for all the causes they now support, consequently one is left more confused as to what the facts really are. For example,
In an exclusive BBC interview, Mr Oweib said: “I didn’t see who killed, which weapon killed Gaddafi.” He added that some of his fighters had wanted to shoot the colonel, but that he had sought to keep him alive.
After Col Gaddafi collapsed, Mr Oweib said, he drove him to a field hospital where he was pronounced dead. “I tried to save his life but I couldn’t,” the commander said.
Questions have been mounting about the death. Video footage suggests he was dragged through the streets.
The US has called on officials to give an account in an “open and transparent manner”. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the “way his death happened poses an entire number of questions”.
Mr Lavrov called for a full investigation, echoing a similar call by UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay.
Open and transparent manner? I thought the pictures shown in umpteen you-tube videos made it quite clear, but suddenly those responsible for what happened to Gaddafi want to appear civilised.
Yes; ‘Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan, on the spot in Libya, tells it differently to INBBC:
“Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly death raises questions the length of Libya’s revolutionary road”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8843700/Muammar-Gaddafis-grisly-death-raises-questions-the-length-of-Libyas-revolutionary-road.html
As an aside, I suppose Mr Lavrov wants Mr Gadaffi’s death investigated in an open and transparent manner the same way that Alexander Litvinenko’s and Anna Politkovskaya’s deaths were investigated?
Obama (and his underlings, inc BBC-Democrat) excellently exposed by David P as shifty, political opportunists on a global scale.
Two main articles on the BBC Mid-East website which actually are related, not only to each other – but to a few other recent stories, but don’t expect the BBC to make the connection in this case. They only join dots when it suits their agenda.
The first article is this one Syria crisis: Iran’s Ahmadinejad criticises killings, and it tells us about the ‘humanitarian’ concerns of the Iranian ‘mad jihad’ monkey.
In his most outspoken comments yet, Mr Ahmadinejad told CNN: “Nobody has the right to kill others, neither the government nor its opponents.”
He said Iran would encourage all sides to reach an understanding, but warned the US not to intervene in Syria.
Syria has close ties with Iran, which suppressed its own protests in 2009.
Iran has also put down or prevented about a dozen protests since the wave of anti-government uprisings in the Middle East began earlier this year.
“We are going to make greater efforts to encourage both the government of Syria and the other side, all parties, to reach an understanding,” Mr Ahmadinejad said in the interview with CNN.
He warned against any outside intervention in Syria, in particular by the US.
“The positions of the United States are not going to help. They have never helped,” he said.
Remember this line from him “Nobody has the right to kill others, neither the government nor its opponents.” when you read the next article; Turkey and Iran ‘collaborating against Kurdish rebels’
Turkey and Iran have vowed to co-operate to defeat separatist Kurdish militants, on the third day of a Turkish offensive on its Iraq border.
The Kurdish militants posed a “common problem” for Turkey and Iran, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said on an unscheduled trip to Ankara.
Turkey vowed jointly to “totally eliminate” the “terrorist threat”.
I see nobody is reminding ‘Mad jihad’ about his line that “nobody has the right to kill others – not governments or opponents”, and certainly not the BBC. Also, in the whole article nobody at the BBC thought it important to explain the Kurds point of view about why they attacked Turkey, but then the Kurds have far less importance to the BBC than Iran or Turkey.
An other related story to this one follows Turkey’s hard-line criticism of Israel for killing some of the militants on the Mavi Marmara who were trying to breach the blockade with Gaza. Turkey even threatened to send warships on future ‘humanitarian missions’. It seems it’s not okay to impose a blockade on Gaza following thousands of mortars, rockets, and terrorist attacks emanating from there, but if Turkish actions are anything to go by it’s ‘okay to ELIMINATE THEM’.
But you won’t get that connection from the BBC either.
Syria – Hamas – Iran – Turkey spells SHIT from the BBC
Teddy,
“The first article is this one Syria crisis: Iran’s Ahmadinejad criticises killings”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15416410
“…the next article; Turkey and Iran ‘collaborating against Kurdish rebels'”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15407142
“I see nobody is reminding ‘Mad jihad’ about his line that “nobody has the right to kill others – not governments or opponents”, and certainly not the BBC.”
Well that would be kind of difficult seeing as the first article you quoted happened after the second article.
EPIC FAIL!
Ha ha ha ha !
Only joking Dez. I’m no recent convert to BBC socialism, but being the supercilious twat that you are I bet you started to get a hard on until you realized it was an epic “fake”.
If you want to be taken seriously as a troll Dez you’re going to have to do a lot better than this. I realize the Ministry of Thought hasn’t instructed you yet to be concerned about the plight of the Kurds, in keeping with their ‘concern for the poor oppressed people’, so I can see why you’re not bothered with that element of the article.
As to which article came first, like it’s real important, and I wasn’t trying to list it in date order – merely one before the other, then even if it’s as according to your order, shouldn’t there be a ‘HALLELUJAH – Mad Jihad has seen the Light’ article following his denouncement of violence? In any case – get somebody intelligent to explain the real crux of my posts for you.
In other news, I see Turkey is suffering earthquakes again, and not far away from where they are fighting the Kurds. I wonder if these ‘God-fearing’ Muslims will be considering if God is supporting their cause or not, and whether Israel will send volunteers to help as they did in the last major ones they had.
Yes; the contradictory, double-standards, appeasing INBBC
David, you are being very silly. What appears on Google is whatever is in the relevent <meta tag> for that page. It’s part of the HTML source code and not (as you seem to think) anything to do with Mardell’s “opening line”.
So no “stealth edit” – just you not quite understanding the way the internet works ;p
Wrong, Dez. Those are the very words I read when I first read his post the other day. Nothing to do with metatags. Those words aren’t there any more. It was cached.
Now, please show me the relevant html source code with the words I’ve quoted. Copy and paste, please. Or you’re a liar.
David,
Well I can’t account for what you saw, but goto:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15393497
select “view source” and you will see:
<meta name=”Description” content=”The death of Col Gaddafi is a vindication of sorts for Barack Obama’s foreign policy, and the awkward US decision to ‘lead from behind’.”/>
If you are absolutely sure you read this in the actual article rather than the description on Google then I’m sorry and will hang my head in shame until at least the day after tomorrow.
Still wrong, Dez. The reason those words are in the meta description is because those were the original words Mardell wrote. For example, just from a random selection:
NY bus accused of sex discrimination
meta: <meta name=”Description” content=”New York City officials say they could shut a bus service running through an Orthodox Jewish area that has been accused of asking women to sit at the back.”/>
<meta name=”OriginalPublicationDate” content=”2011/10/21 22:53:48″/>
Actual first line: New York City officials say they could shut a bus service running through an Orthodox Jewish area that is accused of asking women to sit at the back.
New Sunday ferry service for Harris to start
meta: <meta name=”Description” content=”The first Sunday passenger ferry service is to sail out of Tarbert on the Hebridean island of Harris.”/>
Actual first line: The first Sunday passenger ferry service is to sail out of Tarbert on the Hebridean island of Harris.
Tunisia to vote in historic election
meta: <meta name=”Description” content=”Tunisians are set to vote in the first free election of the Arab Spring, nine months after the fall of former President Zinedine el Abidine Ben Ali.”/>
Actual first line: Tunisians are set to vote in the first free election of the Arab Spring, nine months after the fall of former President Zinedine el Abidine Ben Ali.
Sensing a pattern yet? A few minutes spent on News Sniffer shows that, the vast majority of the time, when the meta description doesn’t exactly match the first line, it’s pretty close. Most likely there was an original working first line, before editing, and before it was even posted in the first place.
Yet Mardell’s line is drastically different. I stand by my claim that he originally said the President was vindicated, because that’s the Narrative his fellow travellers at the HuffingtonPost have been pushing for a couple months, and that’s what his friend David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post the same day of Mardell’s post.
You can always ask him yourself, if you like. Tell him he’s been unfairly attacked on a BBC hate site. Then you should hang your head in shame until at least next weekend, and wonder how something the President didn’t want to do at all suddenly vindicates Him.
I notice that there is no response from Dez after nearly 18 hours – previous response time 1 hour. As usual, Dez, when rumbled, disappears until the next spurious and/or nitpicking post. No apology or “hanging head in shame” of course.
‘Has His Nobel Peace Prize been vindicated yet? FFS.’
Nobel prizes are an entirely private affair between donor and recipient. The awarding body is an entirely private one.
No vindication is required from anyone.
However, I’m surprised that the BBC made such a fuss when President Obama ‘won’ the Nobel peace prize.
It’s unusual to see the BBC having so much respect for the judgment of a private organisation.
The BBC are still whining on about how old fuzzyhead met his end. “many people are concerned about how he was treated” spouts very camp male beeboid from Tripoli.
Many people? The BBC and the Guardian newspaper are the only ones I see moaning.
and their partners in crime the UN of course
can’t forget them can we?Much as we would like to…… 😉
Martin, I think you’ll like this article from The Commentator 😉
Yesterday, BBC Radio Five Live disgraced itself on Libya.
I watched the Mid-day News 24 from the bBC today. They devoted the first 15 minutes to..Libya. then after a quick 5-6 mins talking about the Euro, New Zealand beating france they then spent 10 minutes on ..Tunisa. Then after the Mid-day weather (Funny enough for the UK) they returned to talking about Libya.
Can anybody tell me what the B in the bBC stands for?
Yes, the Beeboids’ organisation should have a name change to reflect its true political purpose which is to use the enforced tax on we British licencepayers to finance their global ‘Socialist-Islamic’ empire, employing only like minded politicos globally to achieve this mission.
How about ‘SIC’: ‘Socialist-Islamic Corporation’.
Or even “Wahhabism And North Korea Educational Research Society” – WANKERS for short.
I just watched this YouTube clip “A Case for Treason” and at 4:25 he states that the establishment pressured the media to remove all front line anti EEC reporters and replace them with pro EEC personnel.
If this is true the problem is more serious than I imagined.
DP, I see from your Google screengrab that Medialens was also unimpressed with Mardell’s take on this.
One argument defenders of the BBC like to use is that they get criticised by both left and right so must be doing something correct. I wonder if that argument will get trotted out here given that both left and right are criticising the same thing, ie pro-Obama spin.
Remember, too, that Bliar has once again slipped the noose, as Ghaddaffi’s untimely end has prevented all of us who wanted to hear how Bliar has worked with Ghadaffi but never once enriched himself or benefited from allowing the tyrant back into international acceptance, also to become an investor in UK real estate, particularly around London, a major supporter and supported of the London School of Economics etc.