Sticky Spot

Mark Mardell addresses the difficult subject of US foreign Policy without committing the new BBC crime of “Value Judgement.”

Poor Obama is in a sticky spot. In a period of of electioneering, he must wrestle with the tricky problem of who to suck up to.
Should he choose the disproportionately influential Jewish lobby, which is conspiring to suck America into another of their selfish Jewish wars?
Or should he courageously plump for pleasing the good American people who are “tired of foreign conflicts” and consider it expedient to appease the Iranians.

Carefully avoiding any Value Judgements, Mark Mardell turns to some important experts on the Middle East to find out more. He approaches Cliff Kupchan and Michael Scheuer for their interesting views on the matter. Or should that be interested views.
Professor Matt Kroenig does inject some sense into the mix at this point, but Mardell has not been entirley open about the earlier two spokespersons. We are told is that one is a ‘maverick’ but, what are their political leanings?

“Republicans regard any hesitation in backing Israel as unpatriotic,” says Mark Mardell. His impartial opinion appears to be that good folk vote Democrat.

Seriously, the online article is a little more nuanced, and they did link to a Ronan Bergman NYT article I linked to myself the other day.
To many listeners the Today item I heard this morning would have been a stand-alone item, and that would have been a definite value judgement crime of the first degree.

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Sticky Spot

  1. Jeremy Clarke says:

    “value judgement crime”

    Phrase of the day – I like this immensely.

    It’s neo-Orwellian with just a hint of sarcasm.


  2. Cassandra King says:

    The BBC has never had a problem with value judgements as far as the right are concerned. The EDL/BNP/UKIP/TPA/right wing think tanks/Thatcher and all CAGW sceptics are all subject to constant value judgements by BBC staff.

    The BBC has bever had a problem airing partisan opinion as fact, allowing one sided political attacks by the left and far left, supporting green fascism and allowing them to openly and brazenly contribute entire reports based on nothing more than conjecture and guess work.

    I have a value judgement for the BBC, they are scum sucking lying filth.


  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Nasty old Israel keeping the US in the dark about their plans, eh? I wonder if this poor diplomatic situation is related to that awkward open-mic incident with the President and Sarkozy? Did Israel drag the US into yet another unwanted war back when they bombed Syria? How about when they bombed Hezbollah in Lebanon? I guess I missed those international wars. I think I’ve been hearing worries that Israel would start WWIII for about thirty years now.

    And hang on, Kupchan said the President would provide “rhetorical support”. Is that some euphemism for bombing the crap out of people, or is he actually saying the US won’t start bombing the crap out of people, contrary to the way Mardell set this up?

    If Republicans think not reflexively supporting Israel is unpatriotic (a dishonest characterization of what Romney actually said, but never mind), then Mardell thinks that supporting Israel is done only at the bidding of Jewish money. I wonder how popular the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is at the BBC? Or how many Beeboids believe that there’s at least some truth to it? I wonder which other allies the BBC thinks the US shouldn’t bother supporting?

    Whenever the BBC doesn’t label someone, you know where they really come from, so this is par for the course. I noticed none of these experts Mardell sought out opined on how US diplomacy had been failing in keeping Iran from getting to that point of no return. Instead, Mardell summed it all up as sabre-rattling to scare others into joining the sanctions. So was all this fear-mongering about Jews starting an international war just a load of BS, a bit of pointless demonization of Israel for no reason?

    Remember, though, whatever happens, none of it is His fault. Everything can be blamed on someone or something else. I’m sure nobody in Iran felt empowered and emboldened by His big wet video kiss to the Muslim Middle East and apology tour back when He took office.


  4. ian says:

    Israel, the middle east’s scapegoat, will have to lauch a pre-emptive strike on Iran if there is a danger of being nuked. Then the US will join in to obtain “peace”, that is a piece of the oil action in post-war Iran. (The mullahs nationalised western oil assets when they took over.)

    But the BBC will gloss over the fact that oil firms make US policy, and carry on blaming Israel and the rich American Jewish lobby for everything, thus preserving the incorruptible name of the obamessiah.


  5. Cassandra King says:

    Talking about BBC value judgements, the BBC toady show had one of its regular wank fests about Cuba and how their old American cars are getting too expensive to maintain and its all because of the nasty spiteful US embargo. A throwback to the days of the cold war is how the BBC wishes to see it, oh if only poor little oppressed Cuba wasnt being crushed by the USA all would be wonderful.

    Of course the BBC toady show was ultra careful not to criticise the Obama regime in any way, when two favoured BBC icons come into conflict the BBC gets out their trusty airbrush. They love Cuba but they also love Obama and he cannot be blamed for the US embargo can he?

    Cuba is of course a thug regime that relies on the AK47 and the secret police and a gravytrain of corruption to survive, no democracy for Cuba, but Cuba doesnt need a multi party democracy like the Muslim world does, no Arab spring type deal for Cuba as far as the BBC is concerned.

    When is a rancid violent ugly corrupt military oppressive regime acceptable? Well comrades its a value judgement for the BBC, the hard men of the Arab world deserve to be exterminated but kindly loveable old Castro & Co are real true socialists of the Marxist model and therefore in the eyes of the BBC utterly perfect.


  6. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Christ Christie continues to poke his finger in the eyes of Mardell’s fellow travellers in the media:

    Christie: ‘I Admire Israel for the Enemies It Has Made’

    Why can’t the BBC find time for the opinion that Iran might possibly be remotely bear even a sliver of responsibility for this situation?


  7. deegee says:

    Something the BBC will never acknowledge.
    Israel a Strategic Asset to the United States

    It’s not all about the Jews and American Jews who have influence are not pushing America to war.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      What I keep wondering is why the US can share strategic interests with just about any other country apart from Israel. I also keep wondering why people like Mardell refuse to acknowledge Iran’s responsibility for any of this.


  8. George R says:

    “The BBC Does Have One Group it’s Happy to Label as ‘Extremists’

    “…while the BBC declares it is beyond the pale to impart a value judgment where it concerns a Muslim jihadist, it expresses no such hesitation when it comes to Israeli Jews. This, my friends, is nothing more than anti-Semitism.”