Let us be clear. The BBC opposed the liberation of Iraq long before US troops went in and ever since it has done everything possible to undermine and de-legitimise the war. Aligned with the “International Community”,  I am sure Saddam appreciated the efforts of the BBC to derail the necessary regime change and it’s just such a shame that he is no longer around, along with his evil sons Uday and Qusay, to listen to this kind of tripe on the BBC this morning. Richard Perle does his best but Humphyrs is bristling with the pompous self regard of the political left to whom every war is Viet Nam. At least he allows Perle to make his points without irritating interruptions Wonder what you make of the BBC coverage of the end of US operations in Iraq?

Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to END OF IRAQI DAYS

  1. Alan Trout says:

    You can always rely on the BBC to function as the propaganda wing of the enemy. The enemies fighting abilities will be talked  up while our troop’s fears and problems are exaggerated.  A single friendly casualty will get a headline billing in a news broadcast – enemy casualties are never mentioned. The only exception being when a civilian has been killed by accident in which case it will dominate the headlines for entire news cycle.

    The BBC is a disloyal, unpatriotic organisation  – how can it justify its public funding.


  2. Louis Robinson says:

    “…the pompous self regard of the political left.” Well said, Vance.

    The lefties dirty little secret is that secretly they know (hope) they will never have to shoulder responsibility. This allows them the luxury of sitting on the sidelines pouring scorn on everyone who has to actually do somthing. In the old days they were called barack room lawyers. Now they are just called “journalists”.


  3. Jonathan says:

    Do something? How about Mugabe? North Korea? Equally vile regimes are they not.

    But not a direct threat to western democracy. Nor was Iraq.

    All wars are pitiful hateful affairs. I loathe the BBC as the next (right thinking) man, but was this war necessary?  
    Bogus WMDs, a fairly thick neocon president and UK lapdog PM looking to boost ratings?  
    This war was a criminal waste ($0.8 TRILLION) and 250,000 civilian dead.  
    Fiat currency leads to war. Next stop Iran I suppose.


    • Bupendra Bhakta says:

      Who can forget the nightly news bulletins when the invasion started – always the ‘but’.  The ‘but’ being BBC code for ‘and now the good news’.  A code of course that (they thought) only fellow lefties could break.

      ‘Coalition forces destory 21 Iraqi tanks’.
      ‘American troops close in on Baghdad’
      ‘But there was a setback when…’

      And as for Rageh Omar at Baghdad Airport, having been tipped off that US troops were going to take it that day, looking around and mocking – yes mocking – their no-show.

      ‘Is that a US soldier?  Oh know it’s a cleaner brushing the floor’, was the level.

      Yeah, they got there soon enough, Rageh. mate.

      The other leftie crap the BBC parade as ‘balance’ on a daily basis is bad enough; but their stance during the Gulf War at times descended into the truly vile.


      • ian says:

        According to Wikipedia, Omar’s family is part of the Somali ruling elite, and he has made a documentary called “An islamic history of Europe”. No wonder he hates the west.


    • Barry says:

      Agree entirely.

      We don’t have to approve of something just because the BBC is against it.

      Iraq is none of our business.


    • hippiepooter says:

      Saddam was sheltering a major Al Qa’eda leader Al Zarqawi after 9-11.  We decommissioned Iraq’s worst weapon of mass destruction: Saddam Hussein.  God bless America, and God Save the Queen.


      • Barry says:

        Al Zarqawi was killed in one air raid and was not the reason we were given for a starting a war that lasted for 8 years.

        And please don’t quote “God Save the Queen” to me.


    • Mailman says:

      So many little leftists lies in such a short rant BB.

      WMD material WAS found, considerable amounts of it…and all of it was shit Iraq SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD!

      More importantly though was the significant little fact that Saddam had had TEN years to comply with UN resolitions to disarm and COOPERATE and what did he do? He banked on the West being gutless and not willing to do anything about his obstruction. 

      How wrong it all turned out for Saddam and his little cronies.

      Not only was Saddam removed from power and democracy installed in to another country in the middle east (no matter how flawed it may be NOW) BUT more importantly, the US demonstrated that it can win when things get dirty. And lets make no mistakes about this…Iraq IS a US VICTORY.

      The British thought they could go in all touchy feely and getting to be friends with the locals BUT it was the US surge that won the war for the West (while the British were surrendering Basra to terrorists).

      Further more, the US now has some of the most experience in the world in winning counter insurgency operations and while doing this proved that to win against terrorists you cannot play touchy feely and worry about their human rights. As we have seen in Malaya, Ireland, Sri Lanka etc, you have to be prepared to crack eggs and be relentless in applying pressure on terrorists so that you either kill them (Malaya, Sri Lanka, Oman) or force them to surrender at the negotiating table (Ireland).

      And yes, As Hippie says GOD BLESS AMERICA and God save the Queen.




      • Barry says:

        “WMD material WAS found, considerable amounts of it…”

        But not the means of delivery. That’s the essential point.

        Should this “US victory” now be reproduced in N Korea? If not, why not?


        • Mailman says:

          Actually, no its not. The simple fact is Saddam should NOT have had any WMD material AT ALL. 

          Further more, a means of delivery can be as simple as a suicide bomber walking in to a shopping centre.

          But nice attempt at a straw man there…and you even tried to get two in to one argument! 

          Finally, your last point is totally unconnected to America winning in Iraq.

          Sorry whats that you say? The American armed forces won TWICE. Why yes, I find myself in agreement with you. America defeated the standing army of Iraq AND defeated the religious inspired terrorists that got sand papered in Iraq.

          Boom! Literally! 😀



  4. Louis Robinson says:

    A different take on John Humphyrs.


    Remember when Jeremy Paxman was reprimanded by the BBC after he was judged to have broken the corporation’s strict impartiality rules. He was warned over ‘inappropriate’ comments he made in an article about the Iraq war in the BBC’s print arm The Guardian:



    He describes “LITTLE George Bush STRUTTING” and “Tony Blair’s sgtriding” “Strutting” and “striding”? Now remember it was Paxman interviewed Blair on “Newsnight” before and after the Iraq War. Conflict of interest?

    “We shall probably forget the Iraq war in much the same way as we have forgotten the British HUMILIATION in Mesopotamia in the First World War.” Well, that’s something – he didn’t mention the Falklands. Oh sorry, we won that one – so let’s forget it.

    But here’s where I disagree with Helen Boaden who censured Paxman. I think Paxman should be allowed to express his opinion freely. We need to know the agendas of our broadcasters.

    So to John Humphyrs: from what I gather he is a wealthy landowner/farmer (aren’t they all?) with a phalanx of “Yes Men” (and women) over the years surrounding him, holding the usual lefty views to assuage his guilt and unassailable in his sense of righteousness. Am I right? Are my moles inside Today truthful or just bitter upstarts?

    I my desire to know more about him, may I suggest he be allowed to article bearing his soul for the Guardian.  


    • hippiepooter says:

      One just has to have listened to him in the mid-90’s through to the election of Blair to know his jaw dropping lack of professional integrity.  It’s a wee bit late for the BBC to start pretending now, after they’ve wreaked all the damage they sought.


  5. Jeremy Clarke says:

    “Wonder what you make of the BBC coverage of the end of US operations in Iraq?”

    As far as Radio 4 and the World Service are concerned, its talking heads have ranged from sceptical to scathing and overall I think the coverage has lacked balance. I certainly do not recall hearing anything from Leon Panetta.

    But BBBC favourite John Simpson’s article is quite excellent, IMHO.


  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    “Some have a future, but many have been killed.”  As if more people have been killed than have a future. That’s one of more disingenuous, close to dishonest, statements I’ve ever heard from Humphrys.  
    I noticed he also had no answer for Perle’s point that things would have been even worse under Uday and Qusay. None of that reality matters, of course, because the default position at the BBC is that it was wrong to go into Iraq, full stop, no matter what. The BBC selectively cares about human rights. Very selectively.

    This interview was another example of the BBC not so much taking a contrary position to ask challenging questions but simply telling the person that they’re wrong, full stop.  This isn’t journalism, this isn’t an interview, this isn’t informative. It’s bias, and opinion-mongering.


    • Mailman says:

      Look, the simple fact is that the VAST majority of civilian deaths are caused by Muslims sending other Muslims to their packet of raisins in the sky via truck/car/cycle/suicide bombs.

      Further more, EVERY SINGLE DEATH in Iraq on both sides is the sole responsibility of Saddam Hussein. Hell, all he had to do was comply fully with his surrender terms and he would 1. still be alive today, 2. still be in power (most likely).

      But he f8cked up and bet on black when he should have bet on Red, White and Blue.

      Actually, Saddam probably gained a lot of strength from all those millions of anti-war protestors so in many ways they are just as guilty as Saddam for all the deaths that followed for without their support Saddam most likely would not have been so emboldened to do his own thing.



  7. Martin says:

    What I find interesting is how the BBC have written Nu Liebore, Gordon Brown and especially Alistair Campbell out of the Iraq war.

    Was it those Tories that did it then BBC?


  8. cjhartnett says:

    All so negative!
    Why only yesterday, some reporter from the BBC was able to tell us that mission was indeed finally accomplished…the airport road had trees to shade his open toed truck and he could finally eat in a Baghdad restaurant and not sneak his butties in under an Iraqis djelleba at the BBCs unmarked van.
    He`d been into the BBC bureau at least twenty times now as well…so he would know.
    I`d not tell Monbiot that though!


  9. john in cheshire says:

    Mr Humphrys – if history recalls him at all; which is unlikely; he will be recalled with revulsion, as a willing running dog of the socialist monolith that is the bbc.


  10. hippiepooter says:

    I agree with you DV that the BBC was a propaganda arm of Saddam Hussein before, during and after the Iraq War and put the wind in the sails of the terrorist insurgency thereafter, but this interview wasn’t part of it.  Compare it to the way Harrumphrys has interviewed Tony Blair on it – that really is toe-curling and obnoxious bias.


  11. tincity says:

    A mate of mine was assigned to Media Ops during Telic 1.  His lasting impression of the journos he had to look after, was their complete ignorance and nievity of all things military, especially the Sky bird who had no appreciation of how easy it was to put an OP in on her when she insisted on her daily shower!
    By the time I got out there, for Telic 2 (The War Crimes Tour), not a journo in sight…… until we got our arses kicked on 9/10 August.  We lost more men to the enemy on that tour than during the invasion, and the press got a hard-on when Snatch was deployed!!  Thank fuck I was on my way home when that heap of shit turned up in theatre!


  12. cjhartnett says:

    Got to admit that whenever I see the likes of Richard Perle and John Bolton, I feel embarrassed to have thought them rabid cranks and warmongers way back.
    Those Reagan years were ones where I was hoodwinked…or to be more precise; unable to see life outside the ambit of the Guardian…the BBC was just assumed to be a good thing, but neutral.
    It helps to remind myself what a gullible self-righteous know-all I was back then…I`m hopeful that the next generation will come to their senses a lot quicker than it took me. Thank God for the Internet, for family, kids and the States paid ringside seat.
    Coming to think of it…I should have applied to the BBC when I was the arsehole of self-righteousness that I was back then.