Obama was trapped by his own Red Line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria…I note he now says action will only be taken if there are significant casualties resulting from the use of chemical weapons…..so presumably that is designed to give him a bit of leeway in not having to respond to attacks resulting in relatively few casualties.
Obama is now seeking a vote in Congress to get the go ahead for any strike on Syria.
It might seem that Obama is running for cover and sees a vote, as per the UK’s, as a way out with ”honour’….able to blame Congress should the vote go against intervention….‘I wanted to go to save the Syrian people but…..’
Mardell disagrees….he thinks Obama will probably win a vote but….this is democracy in action he says…a ‘canny, democratic move’. Whilst Cameron was given a drubbing by the BBC for having lost the vote with many a dire consequence predicted, Obama, should he lose the vote, looks like he will be praised for adopting a consensual approach….if he wins Congress can be blamed if the strikes go pear shaped and Obama can avoid the full blame.
Mardell is providing us with a some positive spin here for Obama whilst, as I said, Cameron was given a rough ride…..only yesterday the BBC was suggesting that the ‘special relationship’ was over….but as Obama is following Cameron’s lead perhaps the BBC got that wrong….perhaps all that chatter about Britain’s place in the world being diminished, a dramatic change in foreign policy, damage to Cameron’s authority, profound constitutional change, might be seen as so much BBC wishful thinking and rushed, ill judged comment from our eminent broadcaster.
The BBC had it both ways with the vote in the UK…Cameron loses and it is a disaster for him…but if he had won the BBC could have gone on the attack about Britain trying to be the ‘world’s policeman.’ ….no such qualms about being the ‘world’s charity’, handing out billions in world aid….or indeed the £300 million already spent by the UK to help the refugees from Syria which helps Assad stay in power and may feed those refugees but comes nowhere near to providing a real solution to their problems…an end to the war.
It will be interesting to see the BBC reaction and their analysis of the consequences for Obama should he lose the vote and just how that compares with how Cameron was hung, drawn and quartered by them.
Indeed, it will be interesting to see how they react to Obama winning the vote…and how they perceive US strikes will effect his standing in the world and the likely effectiveness of such strikes.
Yep. looking forward to the ‘lost control of his Foreign Policy’ etc with umpteen adjectives saying just how bad it really is for Obama.
What this does show is how Britain can still have such a major impact on world events and the course Western powers take.
I recall once telling an old pal that he supported his favourite political party as if it were a football team – he could rarely ever see any wrong it, but worse still he could never see any merit in its opponents.
That sums up the BBC’s relationship with Obama and Cameron.
Also the corporate imperitive are different. Obama won’t be heading up the next Licence Fee negotiations – the BBC hopes Ed Miliband will be doing that for them.
I like the point above about the BBC moaning when Western powers try to act as the ‘world’s policeman’ – whereas the BBC seems to think we must have a ‘world’s lawyer’.
But you see the BBC is the World’s Broadcaster, Conscience and Liberal Values Standard Bearer, all rolled into one. It is so frustrating for them when things don’t unfold as they would like them to.
If Assad et al now go ahead and kill more civilians the liberal left will have to question Milliband’s judgement, but the BBC may not feel it should actually broadcast the answers! They really do seem to be on the horns of a dilemma and I hope that they are badly gored.
I wonder what the BBC’s attitude toward Cameron would be if he was black? “Stabbed in the back by racists”, perhaps.
I think they’re saving that for if Obama loses to Congress.
I sometimes think we are banging our heads on the wall here. Call it bias or bloody-minded stupidity, the fact is as far as the BBC is concerned The Super Obamaman can do no wrong, even when he is following meekly behind The Super Turning Camboy, and visa versa. This is just the Topsy Turvy BBC world we live in.
We are led by fools following fools with fools telling us what fools we are.
Yes, it’s a surprise Obama has backed off, although submitting the vote to Congress is something he advocated Bush should do, so at least he’s consistent.
It’s the Sun which said the Special relationship was over when it quite clearly isn’t. The realtionship between the US and British isles is far far deeper. We didn’t go to war in Vietnam either which many forget. The fact that the BBC raised the Q is what any journalist would do, looking at the impact.
As for Cameron being stabbed in the back. How? He failed to sell yet another military venture to the public. If you believe we should be attacking Syria, then make that clear. Not much support for it.
As for Milliband, he has shown that he is possibly the most brutal effective politician since Thatcher. Shafted his own Brother, humiliated Cameron, secured his own leadership. Must have read Machiavelli again this week. Had Cameron done so he wouldn’t have destroyed his credibility. the Chapter on making your subjects fear you seems pertinent. His party doesn’t.
Don’t see much bias in the BBC reporting. Trying to interpret what is going to happen next is impossible. But I suspect Obama has something up his sleeve which he didn’t give to Cameron that’ll swing the perception/mood his direction in Congress.
‘Don’t see much bias in the BBC reporting.’
Shocked, I tell you… shocked!
No bias at all, will? Even from Mardell? He said the Obombing was imminent because John Kerry forced the President into a corner – not the President Himself, who openly called for Assad to step down three months ago, and for the last week has said we need to act. Now that public pressure, and Cameron’s example, have forced Him to seek Congressional approval – which He did not do for Libya, even after the law required it – Mardell calls it “canny”.
And no bias in the BBC now being worried about the Special Relationship (who cares if the Sun brought it up first?) deteriorating because of Cameron’s “failure”, yet when Bush was in charge, it was a bad thing to follow the US into a war.
We’ve heard all this before, anyway, only it Cameron wasn’t to blame then, and the BBC wasn’t so worried.
Obama’s canny, democratic move – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23918088
No mention here of the weakness that Obama has shown by putting the need of politicians to finish their holidays over the need for America to reach a quick decision on Syria.
But hey, who cares if the lingering uncertainty causes the stock market to fall and oil prices to rise? You can’t put a price on allowing people to enjoy a good holiday…
Jeff
Top rated comments interesting. Like this:
13. DeeplyConcerned
Thank God the BBC has never been accused of political bias here in the UK.
Obama is canny…
Cameron is humiliated…
Both for doing exactly the same thing – bowing to the will of the people and their elected representatives.
Can we just have the news please BBC and not your desperate need to play kingmaker in the next elections?
No better than the Daily Sport used to be
See if that changes once the cubicles refill and the intranet buzzes post-weekend.
Meantime, where there’s a will there a way…
And just in case, anybody out there still thinks that the BBC remain neutral or non-partisan…I refer you to exhibit A.
M`lud-Paddy O Connells “interview” with some bloke from “Republicans Abroad”-or such like( B.H 9.11am or so this morning!).
The man was on the show solely for his “American perspective”, him being American an`all.
Yet his opening blasts at John (Reporting for doodie) Kerry obviously rattled Paddy.
So began a continual pea shooter spud-gun approach to whatever our American was saying. Paddy indeed presumed that this was an American problem, not a political shambles of Obamas making.
How very dare you sir…isn`t Mark Mardell the REAL Vice of America, not you you Tory cur( I paraphrase)?
Utter disgrace-and yet as long as Beeboids think that The Guardian can win Ohio for Kerry, they will persist in trashing Americans who don`t back Obama, Clintons or Kerrys etc…the BBC are colonial imperialists of cultural empires such as media, and they sure as hell won`t be going until they meet their Suez…or sewers as Savile, Ross, Brand, MacAlpine, Hall etc would have it.
Obama and his red line caused it…the BBC don`t care if its a river of blood, as long as they can tell us all that it`s only well-placed red wristbands and ribbons from the AIDS campaign of 1986.
FFS-the BBC have GOT to go!
“…action will only be taken if there are significant casualties resulting from the use of chemical weapons…”
And the rebels say:
‘Inshallah, my bruvver. Greetings from East-enders in teh East. Yeah?
How many casualties do you want from chemical weapons before you’ll attack Assad and his military for us?
Do they all have to die, and does it have to be all in one go? Do bullet holes matter – I only ask in case we’re a bit short of the number? Or need to finish someone off out of mercy – ha, ha, only kidding.
But I arsk bout the number because, you know, you keep shifting the requirement and some of our lads are beginning to wonder whose side you’re on – at least I think that’s what they’re saying.
We’ve got so many different nationalities here that the only things we’ve got in common are an ability to strip an ak47 and a complete killing hatred for anyone who is an unbeliever, apostate or heretic. They’re easy to spot because they’re not us.
PS Tell teh BBC to get their arsers out here, man – they’ll listen to you. What do they think I should be paying my licence for? It’s their perfect chance to see what the UK’s going to be like in a few years.
The BBC continues to be the complete opposite of impartial with regards to Syria. This whole “think of the children” mantra is so transparent and inane that Channel 5 would laugh at how amateurish it is.
Obomber has an escape clause. Apparently the threshold for intervention is 1430 people, but it seems that only 1429 were killed. A close call, though.
“Obama is now seeking a vote in Congress to get the go ahead for any strike on Syria.”
I wonder if the BBC are going to ask Hollande how it feels to be hanging out there as the only western power currently committed to attacking Syria?
Or is he undecided until the Americal Congress decides?
How do French voters feel about that?
Have any clever Beeboids started calling Hollande the President’s French Poodle yet? Or do we have to wait until the first humanitarian bomb is dropped?
I think George Bush had it right.
What happens if Congress votes against this and the President goes ahead anyway? And where are all the astute BBC analysts to remind everyone that the President didn’t bother with such petty things as Congress when He went to war against Libya. That was a limited operation as well, no boots on the ground, supposedly. What’s different between that and this, other than some arbitrary metric for tolerable methods of slaughter and that the current target doesn’t resemble a Muppets reject?
Having read the draft resolution, I don’t know if Congress will reject it. Plus you can bet there’s some serious arm-twisting being done by the Community Organizer-in-Chief’s minions, and horse-trading going on right now among the Dems and Republican leaders. They have to know that if He loses on this, He’ll go rogue on a lot more than just this war.