Mark Mardell reports that Mitt Romney’s comments about the Palestinians and the peace process are gaffes of a catastrophic scale.
‘A new secret video clip has emerged of remarks by Republican candidate Mitt Romney, saying the Palestinians are committed to Israel’s destruction.
Mr Romney is shown saying that Palestinians are “committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel”.
“The Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace,” he says, adding that “the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish”.’
Or is Romney actually more in touch with the reality of the situation than either Mardell, the BBC or Obama?
Curious that Mardell, in the interests of a fully rounded report and the context of Romney’s remarks, doesn’t refer to what I guess these must be Palestinian ‘gaffes’ otherwise:
Hamas Charter
Israel will exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it…. Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…. The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight [kill] the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
Fatah Constitution
Goals: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. Method: Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic… in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished…. Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine.
And in April 2012:
Palestinian Authority minister stated last month that the Palestinians should unite in order to focus on the destruction of Israel.
At an event with the participation of three PA ministers, Minister of Social Affairs Majida Al-Masri called for Palestinian unity and reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas in order “to turn to the struggle for the liberation of Palestine – all of Palestine.”
It is curious how the BBC are so ready to comment on free speech and the limits that they believe should be imposed upon it when a video about Muhammed is aired on Youtube, less so when State governments have charters that call for the destruction of a nation and its people.
And Muslims aren’t going to stop at just Israel’s reconquest….the Muslim Brotherhood have their own ideas….yes, the BBC’s favourite moderate Muslims:
Muslim Brotherhood goal: Islamic world domination
– “…the Islamic Ummah [nation]… can regain its power, be liberated and
assume its rightful position which was intended by Allah, as the most exalted
nation among men, as the teachers of humanity…”
– “…know your status, so that you firmly believe that you are the masters of
the world, even if your enemies desire your degradation…”
– “It should be known that Jihad and preparation for Jihad are not only for the
purpose of fending-off assaults and attacks against Muslims by Allah’s
enemies, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of
establishing an Islamic state, strengthening the religion and spreading it
around the world…”
– “…Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries.
The Muslim homeland is one and is not divided. The banner of Jihad has
already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised,
with the help of Allah, until every i nch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the
State of Islam will be established…”
Means: Jihad – a mandatory religious duty
– “This is followed by the power of arms and weapons… This is the role
of Jihad.”
“Jihad is a religious public duty… incumbent upon the Islamic nation. Jihad is
a personal duty to fend off the infidels’ attack on the nation…”
– “The youth should know that the problems of the Islamic world, such as
Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea, or the Philippines, are not issues of
territories and nations, but of faith and religion. They are problems of Islam
and the Muslims, and they can be resolved neither by negotiation nor by
recognizing the enemy’s right to the Islamic land he stole. Rather, the only
option is Jihad for Allah, and this is why Jihad is the way.”
– “The symbol of the [Muslim] Brotherhood is the book of Allah [the Quran]
between two swords. The swords symbolize Jihad and the force that protects
the truth represented in Allah’s book.”
– “You should be prepared to answer the call of Jihad whenever you are
called, in any region of the Islamic world. Our Islam is universal not regional,
and all Islamic countries are one homeland….go out to battle, oh believers,
young and old, by foot or on horseback, under all circumstances and
conditions”
This thread will be a Dez, Scott, Jim Dandy, JAH and David Gregory-free zone.
Not sure why that is a “catastrophic gaffe” – because Romney is merely quoting Hamas and palestinians themselves!
I think the Beeb have just been waiting to put ‘Romney’ and ‘gaffe’ in the same sentence…
Its about time the non-Islamic world got Medieval on Islam.
I look forward to the day that every Mosque in this country is pulled down and the adherents ‘persuaded’ to leave these shores for good.
That will only happen when the cowardly left-wing scum that run things are eliminated.
What a pity that neither Jan Sobiewski nor Charles Martel had cruise missiles. They would have made quite a dent in that lump of black rock. A little western regime change would put things right, with both Mark Mardell and Osama Barack chained to one.
C’mon, it’s great to walk in circles around a piece of lucky meteorite…
Mardell and the BBC are well aware of the Palestinians’ desires, and what it says in the Hamas and Fatah charters. Every once in a blue moon, the BBC will actually mention that the Hamas charter calls for Israel’s destruction.
But the Beeboids feel that this is an unavoidable reaction to decades of Zionist cruelty, oppression, and quasi-genocidal tactics. They understand and sympathize with these oppressed people, so don’t take it all that seriously. They really, really believe that if only Israel would stop being so aggressive and cruel and stop deliberately targeting Palestinian babies with their missiles, the Palestinians would quickly come to a peaceful two-state solution (with Jerusalem as the Palestinian capitol, but never mind).
This is the full video ( in two parts) , just under an hour long
http://kebabtime.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/romney-fundraiser-part-one.html
Thanks, Billy. He’s a real monster, isn’t he? I just might hide behind my pinny like the rest of them…..
It’s refreshing to see a politician actually have a clue about the reality of the middle-east situation. Pity he isn’t brave enough to say it a lot louder.
I think most Americans take Romney’s realistic view on the Palestinians rather than Obama’s naive view.
Just as polls by a couple of major TV channels are now showing that a majority of Americans reckon Romney is right to be arguing that the US simply cannot afford the gross expansion of the dependency culture.
Which would explain why the BBC make the headline for this article on the UK Yahoo page as Romney taped in Mid-East ‘gaffe’ yet on the article linked to, which is coming from their US/Canada webpages, is Mitt Romney secret video reveals views on Middle East
What a breath of fresh air this Romney is. A real politician telling it like it is. No wonder the BBC can’t stand him.
I did read Mardell ‘s report. You could be being a little unfair to him . He appears to be reporting for once. We must be sure of our ground.
The important thing is the fact that Romney actually reflected reality for once and Mardell, although he may not like this, does report it reasonably evenhandedly.
It’s not so much reporting as it is regurgitating the spin coming from what Mardell has previously described as a mostly liberal US mainstream media.
He defines the video as “secret”, but doesn’t say how it came to exist. The word also has negative connotations, which betrays an editorial bias. Zero speculation about an operative infiltrating a private event, which is illegal in Florida. Mardell’s opinion is that somehow Romney’s campaign is in a panic, but it’s really less a total rethink than it is an expansion after the convention and the ability to finally spend all that campaign cash in order to get the bigger picture out there. In any other election, this would be considered normal. But since it’s a challenger to The Obamessiah, everything must be a mistake.
Other than a brief “many conservatives may share his views”, there is no reporting on what anyone other than the US media thinks about all this. That’s not reporting, that’s repeating groupthink from the Beltway Bubble.
A “bounce” for the President is really little more than things not changing very much from before. If He’s so great, and Clint Eastwood was such a disaster, He should be miles ahead. Yet there is no questioning why He isn’t. Everything is spun in the President’s favor.
How come that whole Jerusalem fiasco wasn’t a “gaffe”? Oh, that’s right, despite what the White House website did, and despite Jay Carney’s refusal to answer a question about it, the President actually swooped in to save the day on that one. According to the BBC, anyway. He can do no wrong, Romney can do no right.
As the anti-Muslim rhetoric has ratcheted up over the last few days I’ve begun to wonder whether this site was after all justly called a ‘hate site’. I can’t help noticing that Alan’s various utterances (not to mention many of the comments which have ensued) over the last 72 hrs place him quite far to the right of the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. On this particular issue, if you’re going to condemn Mardell for bias, the entire DM editorial staff and the Telegraph’s Damian Thompson, who describes Romney as an ‘idiot’, are also guilty.
Alan’s post simply states facts about Islam. And the threats it poses. It is not Islamo-phobic to write down these facts – as I have said, it is Islamo-nausea.
How do you know the views of the entire editorial team at the Mail ? And if you want to cite Telegraph writers – why not quote the senior guy, Con Coughlin, who knows whereof he speaks.
You haven’t noticed the anti-western rhetoric being whipped up in the world then, or the anti-western violence that follows it? How about the antisemitic rhetoric and violence? Redwhiteandblue, you are JimDandy and I claim my 72 virgins, I mean £5.
Non-sequitur. I don’t think there’s any denying that Islam has serious problems right now. But I strongly object to sentiments like these, which have no place in an enlightened modern democracy:
“I look forward to the day that every Mosque in this country is pulled down and the adherents ‘persuaded’ to leave these shores for good”
I’m not JimDandy and you’ll have to apply elsewhere for the virgins.
I have also wondered why the Daily Mail and the Telegraph have reported Romney in such negative terms when I and many others think the man is talking common sense. My own conclusion is that like so many articles that appear in both of those rags they are cut and paste jobs that just go with the flow. The debate will last until November and then it will be the American people who decide, not a gaggle of left wing no hope writers. It will be jobs, the price of gas and the wasted lives of their service men and women that will be taken into account by the good folks of the USA, not the weasel words of a false prophet who sold them the wrong sort of change.
With regard to this being a hate site, it is exactly the opposite. This site is pointing out the hate that is being shown by the Muslim world towards the west and in particular Israel. If you cannot see that the embassy burning rabbles of the middle-east, the murder of the four consulate staff in Libya and the murderous verbal garbage coming out of Iran are not the most terrible examples of extreme hate then I despair for you. How you can twist the truth in this way is beyond me.
The Daily Mail has become schizoid in its world view under the editorship of one of Gordon Brown’s few good friends, Paul Dacre. There’s a definite anti-police, anti-monarchy and anti-Tory slant to its editorials while allowing columnists like Richard Littlejohn, Simon Heffer and Max Hastings to champion a conservative (small “c”) viewpoint.
Its constant moralising and faux outrage has made the paper something of a joke nowadays. It also has a tendency to parrot the rest of the MSM’s narrative with regard to certain subjects – Romney being unable to do or say anything right being a prime example.
In my opinion all this country’s printed news output won’t stray beyond apparently mutually agreed parameters in its content and op-eds and so has become increasingly irrelevant to anyone wanting a full, clear and honest picture of world and domestic affairs.
The only decent investigative journalism now appears to be found on the internet. MSM hacks only appear interested in uncritically reproducing official press releases.
Many of us know instinctively what should be asked when interviewing our politicians, but those questions are beyond the vast majority of our media hacks.
The Obama campaign with the BBC as its British representatives has a problem. They don’t want to fight on the President’s record in office, the state of the economy or America’s world standing and every attempt to reference the euphoria of Obama’s 2008 campaign leads to nasty comparisons with what he said then and what he says now. Attacking Romney personally is their best hope.
Somehow Hope is a much more effective slogan than not my fault.
I have made no comment on the protests. For the record, I think they are worse than contemptible. And an ideology that has its priorities so badly wrong, that privileges human life below ‘insult’, has everything wrong. But I also believe the problem is that the mass of people in the countries concerned are pitifully educated. Crude religious dogma is all they know. David Preiser is the only commenter on this blog who is apparently able to grasp this. The rhetoric I object to is the intransigent Islamophobia which can’t see that Islam is reconcilable with Enlightenment values, that uses every example of a jihadi to smear the reputation of the many highly-educated Westernised Muslims who live in this country – people like my GP.
” But I also believe the problem is that the mass of people in the countries concerned are pitifully educated. Crude religious dogma is all they know.”
Dear,
Redwhiteandblue, there you have hit the nail on the head. Their lack of education is CAUSED by their crude religious dogma. It is I’m afraid, self defeating in terms of promoting education. Many people I know claim to have wonderful friends who are muslim, like your GP who I would truly believe is the way you describe him. But, can his enlightenment become a majority view in an islamic state? It simply just has not happened, and cannot because their 7th century practices are written into their faith. And no I cant quote the qu’ran or hadith or sunna or whatever, but I see the practical effects plainly enough of what it says.
Yes, RWB, the other media hacks are spouting the groupthink of US media types. They’re too caught up in their own world here, reflecting the thoughts of other media hacks as being more important than those of ordinary people. They’re all looking at this from a media perspective and not from the perspective of a normal human being. I don’t care if they’re “Tory press” or not.
Good thing this distracts us all from the Libya and Egypt fiasco, eh?
Especially guilty of echoing the US MSM is the Daily telegraph.
The Telegraph? Right wing? Have you read it recently?
Well said Glen, I’ve been calling it the Labourgraph for years.
We prefer to think of it as an evidence based reality site.
Don’t recall anyone here having a pop at Bhudists, Hindus, et al.
However none of these religions have an illiterate fan base who think its their right to take over the world, using brutality as their chosen modality.
It looks like this could be a turning point, where rational people wake up to the true evils of the muslim mind.
I’d go further than that. The contributions made by Chinese, Hindu and Sikh immigrants have been mentioned on many occasions on this site. It’s just that Muslims seem to have a remarkable talent for generating the wrong kind of news, week in week out.
“true evils of the muslim mind”
What poppycock. I suggested that ‘hate site’ was accurate precisely because everybody here appears to hate Muslims . Which is a fairly ridiculous thing to do, given the vast range of peoples, and their doctrinal positions, that that covers.
Well said.
This site makes many good points regarding BBC bias, and has opened my eyes to what I hadn’t appreciated before. But recently some posts regarding Islam have gone too far.
It is not true that all muslims are evil.
It is not true that all muslims are anti-western values.
It is not true that all muslims hate Israel and the jews.
It is not true that all muslims wish to see the islamisation of the west.
I do not doubt that there is a significant number of muslims who do wish these things, and they are contemptible. But lumping all the world’s muslims into this one bracket is nonsensical, and does you no credit.
In a nutshell. Exactly. I hope this puts the matter to rest so we can bet back to business.
‘I’ve begun to wonder ‘
I’ve begun to wonder how it is some folk cannot divorce the facts of a free, independent, mostly unmodded forum from the reality of what that means. Which is folk with different opinions have their say.
It’s almost like you are trying tar all with one brush. Which may well be an ‘ism. I’m offended (doesn’t that mean something has to kick in?).
FWIW, I actually agree that knee jerk generalist negative comments are pointless and unhelpful.
But there’s a difference between wondering what is going on, what is being played down or plain ignored (especially in terms of ‘reporting’, or lack of) and personal prejudices.
Then there is the obligatory ‘wingist’ generalisations and of course tired ‘readers’ allusions that may still play well in the bubble, but frankly now read more as singing from an issued hymn sheet.
Love the Telegraph claim, as nearly their entire commentariat is singing from the same hymn sheet as the BBC… but oddly appear unreflective of their audience mood if you read the comments.
None of these ‘reporters’ cares about the issues. I don’t know if they just love Obama or hate Romney, but the word has gone out, and the word appears to be anything he says that is controversial or even non-anodyne gets blown up and HAS to be labelled a ‘gaffe’.
I keep seeing it everywhere, and keep getting told it’s a killer, but then I find out there may be other views out there and what is being said is resonating despite the vast wave of thought-control being punted out.
Tell it often enough…
Current ‘main’ comment piece on the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9550550/Mitt-Romney-in-the-thick-of-it.html
Not sure if choosing Mr. Campbell was quite the company you keep the other scribes had in mind, but while his views are in sync with theirs, he’s added a new dimension to how the readership feels.
Maybe they just like the ratings and heat serves better than light?
I’d be interested to see if, when President O. commits his next gaf… entirely understandable semantic inexactitude, the likes of the Graun or BBC head straight to the most partisan conservative tribalist they can to pour on the mantra?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19637631
‘Mitt Romney’s unguarded and undiplomatic remarks may reinforce the perception that he is an ingenue in the art of foreign affairs’
As opposed to apologising left, right and centre from Poalnd to Pakistan, by the awesome statesperson favoured by all whose ‘art of sweet FA’ seems on par if the rose-tints ever got lifted.
No Beeboid ever dreamed of calling Candidate Obamessiah an “ingenue”.
I don’t have to pay for the DM or Telegraph.
this site – justly called a ‘hate site’ …
ah! – the gospel or should that be quran according to redwhiteandblue
“far to the right of the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail”
so thats er … far – far right then?
Yep and he will no doubt want the site blocked and censored in line with his BBC camp followers mantra of ‘free speech bad ,my speech good ‘
Funny how these liberal types love censorship/control ? It’s why they like the doctrine of political Islam the gay ones think they can reform it so it’s friendly and muscular and the straight ones like the idea of chaining their women up as all this equal rights they pretend they wanted has left them feeling all castrated in the face of strong women !
“Romney Tells the Key Truth Needed to Comprehend the Israel-Palestinian Conflict”
By Barry Rubin.
http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/09/18/romney-tells-the-key-truth-needed-to-comprehend-the-israel-palestinian-conflict/
Islam Not BBC (INBBC) GAFFE:
-Mardell/Bowen pretend that Hamas is not committed to the destruction of Israel.
The sky is blue.
“Look, a gaffe!”
The sun is very large and hot.
“Idiot!”
A water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
“Disaster! The campaign is in disarray!”
Bitter clinger hobbits who are welcomed in the back of the train only if they behave.
“Awesome! Genius! Adult in the room! The great uniter!”
47 % are dependent to Government.
“Racist! Insulting to all independents! Disastrous gaffe!”
“If you cannot see that the embassy burning rabbles of the middle-east, the murder of the four consulate staff in Libya and the murderous verbal garbage coming out of Iran are not the most terrible examples of extreme hate then I despair for you. How you can twist the truth in this way is beyond me.”
Moral inversion comes easily to the Left – it is their substitute for caring.
BBC World Service has been leading all night with the 47% “gaffe” – saying it is very damaging to Romney. His campaign is in disarray, thinks the BBC. The BBC Chicken Little routine, “Disaster, Romney has lost” – happening every time they think they can follow the Dem talking points. Think Clint Eastwood as a “disater” for the Republicans.
But Romney could really be striking a chord with the real people of America. Obama claims to have compassion, to want to help, but his policies have been disastrous. Whereas Romney is claiming that his policies are firm but just, and will lead to a return of prosperity.
Obama’s convention bounce in the polls has dissipated. Gallup’s latest pol shows Obama ahead by just 1 point – with a skewed polling sample – and Rasmussen yeaterday is showing Romney 2 points ahead. So it remains neck and neck. How is all this a disaster for Romney, except in the themes pursued by leftie media which acts as Obama’s Praetorian Guard, and the wretched BBC flacks who follow the herd.
What is really taking the piss is that juvenile BBC World Service presenters seemed tonight to be seeing the whole matter as a huge joke.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/17/treat-the-press-as-enemy-collaborators/
The 47% “gaffe” makes me smile. To report it the way they are presumes he is speaking as to what he would do as President.
It’s probably never occured to them that he concedes there is no point worrying about them purely as a campaigner i.e. there’s no point trying to appeal to them because even if he showed them indisputable proof of something terrible by the democrats, they wouldn’t buy it.
He’s obviously well tuned in to Yuri Bezmenhov who explained the principle of demoralisation very well indeed.
As to the press and the likes of the DM and the Telegraph that’s very simple and shows some of the problem between left & right. The websites of the DM & telegraph have a habit of just trotting out what’s sold to them from other news sources. They’re effectively news aggregators.
Not a problem in itself except that many of the big news organisations have a liberal bias. An aspect of the left thinking mindset is that it’s more partisan adherents are obsessed with political technique. For them, the war is everyting and must be maintained without pause or rest. The right on the other hand has more of mindset that facts shoudl stand on their own. That makes it a bit of a non contest because the hard left go into battle everyday so they’re constantly gaining ground whilst we’re ceding ground as a result. In press terms, they’re working their angle relentlessly and those press that you thought we “on our side” are just trotting it out, unwittingly doing the lefts work for them to dominate the groupthink.
Until those on the right get that, what we have will continue. Michelle Malkin has certainly got it back in the US when earlier this year, she wrote how we have effectively got to get in the faces of these people and call them out on their BS in the public arena.
Trouble is, once the ‘right’ starts to mobilise it moves towards the left. By definition the right is a loose collection of independant thinkers whilst the left is all group think. The right will always loose ground to the left in this respect.
I don’t want anyone, left or right telling me what to do or think. I want the government off my back so I can run my life as I see fit. Is that so bad?
On this site I want the BBC to give me the facts not their leftist lies.
As to the ‘hate’ – I don’t have a problem with muslims if they don’t have a problem with me. I’ve had both good and bad dealings with muslims and hindus and jews and christians and Uncle Tom Cobbly. AFAIC that’s people for you.
I don’t hate anyone, well except Germans – they bombed our chip shop doncha’ kno’ 😉
I don’t disagree with the notion of governments staying out of our lives and thoughts one bit.
Unfortunately though, as well as a great philosophy it also is our weak spot. It’s not disimilar to the “turn the other cheek” philosophy within Christianity in that someone opposes it and will use tactics and strategies to shut it down. They’re not willing to leave you alone. They have to finish you off, ostracise you, marginalise you and make you afraid of your own shadow. The reason is because if anyone sees you’re free to hold such thoughts, other people might get a similar idea and they know they’re in trouble if a counter narrative takes hold in the wider mindset.
The result is they hit it wherever they see it in an effort to snuff it out. That phrase that took hold in the US of “if they hit you, we’ll hit back twice as hard” is around that notion.
I agree the each to his own philosophy is a fine one, but some people will fight tooth and nail to deny that freedom. Can we afford to sit there and just let them? That’s another question.
I agree the each to his own philosophy is a fine one, but some people will fight tooth and nail to deny that freedom. Can we afford to sit there and just let them? That’s another question.
And a very good question it is. I’d answer no, we can’t – but we’ll lose something worth keeping when we do.
ain’t that the truth – catch 22
It’s only considered a gaffe because Romney said something that affects his likeability amongst the media. He uttered an unapproved thought about the Palestinians, so to them it’s an error of judgment. The media, whom Mardell has admitted are mostly liberal (even while he denigrates those concerned about it as “fulminating that Mitt Romney doesn’t get a fair deal”), understand that the Israel Firster Florida Jews he was speaking to will agree with him, as will the swivel-eyed Evangelicals who support Israel out of Revelations-informed religious fanaticism. But, just like the Beeboids, they feel that they have their finger on the pulse of the nation, know for certain that the general public will recoil in horror, just as they do.
Ergo, to them, it’s a mistake to say such a thing where somebody might have heard him.
“Romney under fire from Leftist media for stating the obvious fact that Palestinians are not interested in peace”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/romney-under-fire-from-leftist-media-for-stating-the-obvious-fact-that-palestinians-are-not-interest.html
Oh Alan…dear, dear Alan!
Clearly you`re not a politician, a BBC stiffie a diplomat or the kind of herbie that Dez etal would like you to be.
I too read your “quotes”…selective I`m sure…from these “frameworks and guidelines”, you rather loosely refer to as “constitutions and charters”…in the original Arabic,…they are mere “codes”, or negotiating bunnies”.
Understandable error-our Bedouin buddies often shout Allah Akbar over these things in translation…means “green tea anyone?” by the way!
Anyway Alan, got to dash…my Arabian magic carpet has arrived…Allah Shazam!
On the Today programme Jim Naughtie said that the 47% “gaffe” was bad and that Romney said he wished the whole “secret” recording was available – well not it is, says Naughtie, and it gets worse. He plays about 30 seconds of Romney saying that there is no chance of peace with Israel because the Palestinians do not want peace. A very short clip. Why didn’t Naughtie play the whole piece ? – it is true, every word of it, and it demolishes the BBC pro-Palestinian case.
I am hoping that in the debates Romney says straight out, to Obama’s face, that he has been hopelessly naive on foreign affairs, one long apology tour, as well as being a failure on economic affairs. Judging by the “secret” film, Romney has command of these facts and can speak to them without a prompter.
James Naughtie is for Obama. That’s not a guess nor a deduction. That’s a quote!
Yes, what was the other viewpoint Romney said he was torn between? What a strange omission. Loved Naughtie’s pointed emphasis when he made sure to repeat the unapproved thought, “Unthinkable. To. Accomplish”. No bias there, then.
Naughtie also mischaracterized the President’s statement about working for everyone. He clearly said He had learned that, which doesn’t exactly reflect well on His thought processes when He took office. Of course Naughtie would never grasp that.
Naughtie also misrepresents what Romney meant about the 47%ers. He clearly said that he couldn’t worry about getting their votes, whereas Naughtie spouted the White House talking point that he would abandon them as President. Is Naughtie being dishonest on purpose or does he actually agree with the President and didn’t understand what Romney said? Is Naughtie deliberately spreading a lie or not?
Why wasn’t this included in the “running order” listing of the day’s contents? I guess they can’t mention everything, and this was just a quick drive-by attack on Romney and defense of the President, and not an official segment.
@2hrs 41min in, after Bob Woodward said the President hadn’t been building relationships with His opponents enough to make deals which is why Rep. Boehner didn’t call Him back for 19 hours, Naughtie defended the President and blamed Boehner and the Republicans for creating a bad situation where no President could get anything done.
The Onion displays genius:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
Can anyone find online the new cartoons of Mohammed published in France by Charlie Hebdo?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19646748
Thanks to Billy Bowden (@Ontablets) on the ‘AM I BOVVERED?’ thread for the link to http://kebabtime.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/that-french-cartoon.html
Although they’re a bit small and difficult to read, I think I’ll take offence anyway.
Kevin Myers is very good on Robert Fisk’s attempt at glib equivalentarianism:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-all-sides-are-not-equal-in-religious-violence-3233155.html
Here’s more of what Romney said that the BBC doesn’t deem important enough to mention:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/ncr/2012/09/whos-right-romney-or-plo.html
The BBC could have taken that bottom line as a headline saying something like, “Romney says US will not go to war over Iran”, but that wouldn’t fit with the BBC World View™
That’s the first time I’ve read that, and the guy has just gone up immeasurably in my estimations. That is a succinct and accurate synopsis, and he should stand by it.
You can hear Mitt Romney saying all that, lucidly, giving his own views rather than a speech, on the Mother Jones “secret” video. This is the Palestine clip – where he goes way past what bumbling John McCain said last time round.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/18/latest-romney-embarrassment-israeli-palestinian-conflict-unresolvable-under-current-conditions/
Romney also laid into the ineptitude of Obama’s whole starry-eyed approach to foreign policy.
I think maybe Romney’s handlers have kept him too cautious – but when the “gaffes” are released, polling is showing that ordinary Americans agree with him. So hopefully Romney will stay saying forceful things. Because his strong suit is that all his life he has had to be a realist – or fail. Obama had never been tested by real-world affairs, had nil useful experience, and it has shown in his disastrous tenure of the White House.
As Clint Eastwood said – “If someone doesn’t do the job, you gotta let them go”
I don’t see how any of what he said could be described as a “gaffe”, apart from the fact that it was meant to be “off the record”.
He should say it out loud and publicly, IMHO.
How is it that we actually pay for Mardell to wander around the USA in splendour and spout incorrect rubbish? Are there no basic qualifications for the job? Oh, silly, remember the likes of Justin “hate America” Webb, and of course who can forget the wonderful objective performance of Barbara “Crybaby” Plett, who is still being paid by us to “cover” the UN.
When is this site going to get down to details and demand some accountability, if not a few sackings? There’s a new boss now. So justify the existence of Biased BBC and get cracking!
Obama GAFFE:
-not picked up by BBC-NUJ-
“Obama: ‘The message we have to send to the Muslim world is we expect you to work with us to keep our people safe'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/obama-the-message-we-have-to-send-to-the-muslim-world-is-we-expect-you-to-work-with-us-to-keep-our-p.html
What a glorious day it will be if and when Romney wins -the dismay and buttock clenching at the BBC will wonderous to behold!
Andrew Marr GAFFE:
“Andrew Marr: I feel like a fool for groping researcher in street.
“Andrew Marr has expressed remorse after being photographed in a drunken, late-night clinch with a female colleague.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9553235/Andrew-Marr-I-feel-like-a-fool-for-groping-researcher-in-street.html
“Mark Mardell reports that Mitt Romney’s comments about the Palestinians and the peace process are gaffes of a catastrophic scale.”
Another typically disingenuous post from Alan.
Mardell did not say that Romney’s comments about Palestinians was a “catastrophic gaffe”;
“Still, what he has said is more likely to provoke reactions in the region he is talking about than at home, where many conservatives may share his views.”
The “gaffe” were his comments about 47% of Americans, as Mardell makes clear:
“It is still his suggestion that nearly half the American people he seeks to represent are losers living off the government, that will continue to resonate here.”
Neither in this report does Mardell label anything that Romney said as “a gaffe”. All he does is point out that others will. As indeed they have.
Actually, Dez, I think you’ve misinterpreted Romney’s remarks about the 47%ers according to the way Mardell has misrepresented them – exactly the way James Naughtie did as well, and the same way the President Himself misrepresented them on Letterman…what are the odds? Gosh. – (not intentionally, of course, it’s just their biased perspective). Romney was very clearly saying that he didn’t have to worry about attracting their votes, nothing to do with him abandoning them if he becomes President.
Here’s the full transcript (at least until the mysterious source’s device stopped recording) direct from Mother Jones (I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to show me where the BBC identifies that mag as Left-wing), so you have no basis on which to dispute it. I’m bolding the bits which show you where you’re wrong:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people…we do all these polls—I find it amazing—we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or 4…
That last sentence could be bolded as well, but I think I’ve made my point. You could not be more wrong about what Romney meant, nor could Mardell, nor could Romney, nor could the scum on tonight’s (Wednesday) Newsnight (and yet another Narrative spreads across the spectrum of BBC broadcasting).
The real question is, how did you get this so wrong? Did your own bias prevent you from grasping what Romney said? Or did you get your interpretation from a Left-wing media source and ran with it?
As for the bit Alan says about “catastrophic” and “gaffe”, where did he put that in quotation marks to denote an attribution, a direct quote? As there are none it’s paraphrase, summary, etc. If you want to take issue with the way Alan describes what Mardell has said, you’ll have to try again. At best, you’ve barely made progress when you point out that Mardell’s saying that other people may call Romney’s statement a gaffe. But then you’d also be supporting the argument that Mardell is doing nothing more than reporting what the media will say, which is hardly worth anyone’s time or money.
Obviously he was talking about those cancer-stricken women unable to work because of their chemotherapy. And Bampire Woomney has a long hystury of bluud suckin’ wiimin (specially steel workers squaws, just ask E. Warren).
Waaaaaaaaaacist bampire capitalist 1%-er who hates blacks!