The BBC has decided it should take lobbying of politicians seriously…not in this country where Unite can rig elections and ‘swamp’ the Labour candidate list for MEPs….and all with Miliband’s approval (ignored by the BBC)……and not in the case of conflicts of interest such as when the BBC ignored completely the revelations about Tim Yeo and his massive green industry financial interests whilst at the same time being chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee.
So where does the BBC cast its investigative eye when it feels the onset of a particular bad bout of indignation?
How Buck McKeon created a global drone enterprise
To America…onto a politician, a politician no one here has ever heard of…a Republican…a Republican who supports the drone industry…you know those drones which the nasty Americans use to kill lovable Al Qaeda chappies….roguish mis-interpreters of the Koran that they are.
We are told that Obama has massively increased the use of these drones..but its OK because…..
The increase in the use of drones came partly because technology improved over the years, making the strikes more efficient, and also because Obama adopted a more focused campaign against al-Qaeda commanders and other militants in Pakistan.
Efficiency and focus….sounds very Republican and right wing to me.
An enormous, very lengthy article……all very well and good (I’ll leave it for David P to analyse the truth of the article)….but why no such diligence and journalistic endeavour at home in regard to Labour Party affairs or Green politics?
Here we have two of the BBC’s bete noires…a Republican and Drones…..what’s not to like from a lefty perspective….I can see this filling the pages of the Guardian quite happily.
That’s the problem…when it comes to subjects the BBC favours it hides the ‘evil’ parts…what you don’t see can’t hurt you…or the Labour Party etc…and can’t effect the way you might vote.
Cynical? No less than the BBC’s blatantly cynical manipulation of our political views.
I was about to say I bet they don’t mention Obama but was pleasantly surprised to read the 6th paragraph under 2nd photo,
“President Barack Obama, a Democrat and a liberal, has been more aggressive than his predecessor. US forces have launched about 360 drone strikes against al-Qaeda commanders and other militants since 2009, according to the New America Foundation. That is more than six times the number of strikes that President George W Bush authorised during his two terms.”
should read ‘I was about to say I bet they don’t mention Obama in a bad light…’
Yes..but they soon corrected that notion of Obama’s drone attacks as being ‘bad’….
‘The increase in the use of drones came partly because technology improved over the years, making the strikes more efficient, and also because Obama adopted a more focused campaign against al-Qaeda commanders and other militants in Pakistan.’
Just had my ballot paper through from Unite.
Executive Council By election 2013
We are choosing candidates to stand for the LGBT National constituency.
All these people want to do is divide into little groups and then sub groups.
So much for United we stand Divided we fall.
But democrat drone strikes: double plus good.
Republican drone strikes: double plus ungood.
I think this bit sums it up nicely:
The increase in the use of drones came partly because technology improved over the years, making the strikes more efficient, and also because Obama adopted a more focused campaign against al-Qaeda commanders and other militants in Pakistan.
“More focused” is typically disingenuous Beebspeak for “Turned it up to 11, with a far higher body count than any Nobel Peace Prize laureate in history”. It’s not His fault that drones exist, of course. And the current state of drone warfare isn’t really His fault, you see. He’s merely using them as best He can with our best interests at heart.
Where’s your anti-war crowd now, BBC? Why aren’t you asking this question yourselves?