It’s funny, really. Obama is looking so far out of his depth on Syria that it is posing a problem for some of his BBC fan club. So, cue the bugle and send for Mark Mardell. Here’s Mark with the entirely neutral headline “Obama’s canny, democratic move”. Canny in the sense that Obama is desperate to ensure he doesn’t take sole responsibility for doing that which he has argued for. When Cameron went to the Commons, the BBC portrayed it as weakness. When Obama scuttles to Congress, the BBC portray it as strength,
MARK MARDELL – CHEERLEADER IN CHIEF…
Bookmark the permalink.
Don’t suppose advertising is allowed on this site but… on Thursday 10th Oct at 7.30 , Robin Aitken, author of Can We Still Trust the BBC, is giving a talk at the Ilkley Literature Festival. It should be interesting .
We shouldn’t be surprised that the BBC shows such blatant hypocrisy in the way they portray Cameron and Obama for doing the exact same thing.
BBC-NUJ is reluctant to show how Obama’s anti-Assad policy puts Obama, wittingly or unwittingly, in league with Al Nusrah and Al Qaeda jihadists in Syria.
Has Obama spoken of the danger of supporting the setting up of a Sharia state in Syria?
“Has Obama spoken of the danger of supporting the setting up of a Sharia state in Syria? ”
Are we absolutely certain that he considers it a danger?
But there is a big difference between Obama and Cameron: one has a Nobel Peace Prize!
Perhaps Cameron wants to go to war because he hasn’t got one yet.
Mardell is failing to report the scorn being heaped on Obama in the US – “amateur hour”, “weakest President since the Civil War”, etc
Or John Kerry looking a total fool on TV today.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/01/video-john-kerrys-not-good-very-bad-day-with-chris-wallace/
Incidentally, the BBC have just done a Profile on Kerry, mostl;y complimentary. In 15 minutes they managed to avoid any specific reference to WHY he was Swiftboated by former Navy men, or the scale of Kerry’s lies over what he “saw” in Vietnam. Or the criticisms of how he “won” some medals – instead the BBC was describing Kerry as some kind of war hero which is a pack of lies.
How can you do a profile on Kerry without mentioning this stuff ?
Bias ? What bias ?
Guessing the edit suite will need to be on OT to splice the bits of that one the BBC would find acceptable into ‘news’.
I’m sure however, the al-beeb will go to lengthy details about why Johnny Ketchup was expelled from Harvard.
I love the way Mardell reports on this, his shared dilemma with Bazzer O’ Bama.
How would you describe his delivery…….sort of a flat, low voice with no real inflection – a complete contrast to his usual animated, semi-orgiastic state of excitement. You get the impression if he could deliver his report whispering from behind his hand, he would.
Ah, got it – reluctant.
For Mardell:-
“Mark Steyn on Obama’s ingenious plan to lose in Syria”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4097/mark_steyn_on_obama_s_ingenious_plan_to_lose_in_syria
For the Obama supplicant Mardell:
– you call your Obamessiah ‘canny’ for going to Congress, but what do you call Cameron for going to Parliament?
If I were the lean, mean Obama-I`d worry like hell if Lardell was wiping his glasses, and getting out the Ventalin inhaler at the prospect of a scrap in the dorm…about the only way the prep school Oxbridge Bunters and Buntings can see ANY conflict.
Suppose there`s no chance of Mardell being sent to Damascus to jolly well sort out those warring factions? Give him a few Scotch eggs in his lunchbox, and he may well retaliate with some halitosis/poison gases of his own as he interviewed the Syrian high command.
It’s not His fault, you see. He was dealt a bad hand. He’s under pressure to send a message to Iran and North Korea, and he said yesterday that it was Kerry’s cowboy speech which is now forcing the President to act. Not His fault, you see. 80% of the public think Congress should be consulted, so He’s only listening to His subjects. Ingrates.
Spot the missing Nobel Peace Prize. Spot the missing reminder of not consulting Congress in Libya being another reason why He’s doing it now. Spot the missing impartiality.
Obama has boxed himself into a corner. His base hates the idea of anything warlike, he is a pusillanimous fool to start with – and he sees a vote in Congress as a copout.
We now see America – Britain’s shield for 65 years – naked in a bad bad world. Not a clue about the Middle East – and endangering everyone by vacillation, and no worthwhile policy. One disaster in the Middle East after another.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/357262/what-point-syrian-intervention-victor-davis-hanson
We’re not all naked over here, John. That’s just the Emperor. But we’re glad some people are finally noticing.
No BBC content here but how much is the USA’s dwindling reliance on Middle Eastern oil going to affect their policy towards that region? If they become energy independent will this affect which regions of the world they see as being vital to their national interests? Will Americans still wish to carry the burden of being the world’s policeman to the same extent as they have during the last 60 years? We live in interesting times. Which makes me think that the UK should certainly keep a powerful nuclear deterrent, as we can’t necessarily assume, that the USA’s interests and are own are going to be as coincident in the future as they have been since the Second World War. Getting fracking might be a good idea too.
Heard Mr Mardell on the ‘Today’ programmme earlier this morning. A straw poll had shown a number of Democrat representatives ideologically – i.e. for perfectly good humanistic reasons, natch – pretty certain to vote against Mr Obama next week, and to counter that, I think the phrase was “….not all Republicans are ‘hawks’ these days…. “(i.e. take it as read that there is nothing ‘humanistic’ about their behaviour on this matter), and so they will vote against Mr Obama also. There was some rumbling about Mr Obama certain tio be facing a hostile, Republican-controlled Congress as well…..
In addition, Mr Mardell mentions that he’s spoken to a few representatives, and specifically from both sides of the house in the US, who are against Mr Obama on this, and presents an interview with one of them.
Now, in the UK, the obvious target for getting on air an opposing view to our Prime Minister would be to find a Conservative, any Conservative, who even vaguely disagreed with the PM, and make a meal of ‘growing dissent within his own party’ – that’s what the BBC does, day in and day out.
But in the US….. not a chance – he interviewed a Republican because, well, he’s bound to think that way, isn’t he ?
Hmmmm…. do I detect a bit of a set-up going on here within the BBC, i.e., if Mr Obama does not get the vote he would like, it will really all be the fault of these nasty, racist right-wingers ? Surely not !
It’s crypto-racists not wanting to start a war under the leadership of somebody not like them, just as Mardell insisted about all objections to ObamaCare and more wealth redistribution.
The BBC have finally found the deeper meaning of Obama’s policy. At present, the first item on the international website is: ‘US strike on Syria ‘helps al-Qaeda”. You see, it is very wise not to strike Syria.
When you click, it turns out that this supposed support for Al-Qaeda is the propaganda line of the Assad regime, as revealed to Jeremy Bowen. This line moreover goes together with an accusation that ‘armed groups backed by America had used chemical weapons’, quoted without comment except that the US says otherwise.
So the BBC take the word of known war criminals (and not only from this incident) as equivalent to that of the US, and all for the purpose of showing how wise and just is Obama’s decision to postpone action.
Is there anything anywhere that the BBC would not distort in order to support their political agenda?
Sorry, here is the link, which has a somewhat different title than the one on the front page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23925037
No
I am very heartened to see the following:
( I hope the image link worked. In case it didn’t it is an american serviceman in uniform holding a sign saying,
“I didn’t join the Navy to fight for Al Qeada in Syria’s civil war)
It looks like a little reality smacked Mardell in the face this morning. The shifting of blame begins.
Obama’s Syrian mission creep?
But it already seems Mr Obama is changing his strategy, deepening his commitment, because of his decision to call a vote in Congress.
Republican Senator John McCain emerged from the White House, if not convinced, then on the way to being satisfied.
His argument has always been that “pinprick” strikes were pointless symbolism – Mr Assad had to be weakened.
He suggested Mr Obama had given hints that the plan was more serious, that it would degrade Mr Assad’s ability to fight, and beef up the rebels. Not Mr Obama’s shot across the bows, but sustained fire into the ship itself, leaving it crippled.
In other words, only Mardell seems to have bought into the President’s BS last week that it will be a very limited strike, in-and-out, quick as you please. And now he’s looking to shift blame away from Him for the extended warmongering.
But it would be ironic if Mr Obama’s decision to get congressional backing forced him further down the road to war than he thought was wise last week.
No, it wouldn’t be ironic at all, unless one completely misunderstood what’s going on in the first place. It would be evidence of either the President’s absolute foolishness, or His dishonesty. I’ve only been saying the whole time that nobody in their right mind believes that this was ever going to be a one-shot deal. Now Mardell is trying to suggest that Congress will be forcing Him to do more. What a joke.
This isn’t dithering: it’s bullsh!tting, treading water until something else comes along. If He has spent so much time in deep contemplation and deliberation, considering all the facts and angles – as Mardell has been insisting is the case on all issues for the last five years – how could He not know this is where it was heading? Either the President is a complete idiot, a foolish, naive child who shouldn’t be allowed to run a lemonade stand, or He’s been dishonest with us for some time now. Or, I guess, He’s just making it up as He goes along, in which case one has to wonder what all those advisers are good for, and if the BBC’s US President editor is worth listening to on anything at this stage of the game.
Either way, Mardell blames Him only for drawing that red line (which is a start), but won’t blame Him for actually going to war because of it, or for any of the other poor decisions which have brought us to this point.
Mardell blames Him only for drawing that red line (which is a start),
Poor Mardell, it’s like nailing jelly to the wall when one tries supporting Him.
The World Drew The Red Line, (not me guv)