It’s almost touching to watch how the BBC does all it can to present Sen John McCain as the standard bearer for the GOP. McCain, the guy who likes to play poker on his phone during important debates on Syria, the guy who thinks those who chant Allahu Akhbar are no different to those who attend Church and give thanks to God, is very much the hero of the hour for the BBC as Obama uses him to try and manipulate GOP opinion. It is remarkable to watch the BBC slant its coverage to put Obama in the best light possible with the teensy weensy detail that 91% of Americans oppose military action conveniently passed over. Can you imagine the OUTCRY from the BBC during the Bush years had 91% of the public opposed HIS military policy?
John McCain -the BBC’s much loved Republican
Bookmark the permalink.
He’s gone AWOL or at least his marbles have: rebels openly attacking hospitals (with Allah’s blessing), openly saying they will slaughter Christians when Assad is toppled. And how can anyone equate Allahu Akhbar with someone saying “Thank God”? I know on many occasions some innocents do say it in a ‘passing comment on something good’ way but the number of times it is used by terrorists and criminals (i.e. EVERY time) they kill someone etc patently makes what McCain is saying complete pants.
NYT FINALLY SNIFFS SOMETHING MIGHT BE WRONG IN SUPPORTING THE ‘REBELS’ IN SYRIA……..
http://tundratabloids.com/2013/09/nyt-finally-sniffs-something-might-be-wrong-in-supporting-the-rebels-in-syria.html
and
AL-QAIDA PROMISE SHOWS WHAT’S IN STORE IN A POST-ASSAD IRAQ, THE WHOLESALE SLAUGHTERING OF CHRISTIANS……..
http://tundratabloids.com/2013/09/al-qaida-promise-shows-whats-in-store-in-a-post-assad-iraq-the-wholesale-slaughtering-of-christians.html
As Obama is setting his policies on what he watches on Youtube, has he seen the freedom and democracy loving FSA making a meal of a captive Syrian soldier. Please Google it, as I dont have the stomach to post the link.
AL-QAIDA SEIZE CHRISTIAN TOWN IN SYRIA, PROMPTLY SMASH STATUE OF VIRGIN MOTHER IN MAIN SQUARE……..
http://tundratabloids.com/2013/09/al-qaida-seize-christian-town-in-syria-promptly-smash-statue-of-virgin-mother-in-main-square.html
I wondered why the BBC weren’t all over that picture of McCain playing poker on his phone during the Senate hearing over Syria. That’s pretty shoddy behaviour by anyone’s standards.
He’s clearly one of Obama’s useful idiots to have the honour of being ignored by the BBC.
reasonable point although in other news McCain has been seriously batty lately.
…and looking at that report I’m surprised they used the image of the red hand protest behind Kerry.
A snap survey of the views of the House of Representatives shows more than 2 to 1 of those who have indicated their views are against Obama. He might well win in the Senate – with clowns like McCain – but there might well be a filibuster.
Evidently the main US networks are failing to mention in more than about 5% of their coverage that the “rebels” are heavily Al Qaeda. Does the BBC tend to glide over this as well. As someone said – it seems a bit unreal to be putting the US Fleet at the disposal of Al Q ?
“it seems a bit unreal to be putting the US Fleet at the disposal of Al Q ?”
Catch-22 – warning or method of operations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Minderbinder
Probably the BBC is closer to Orwell’s Animal Farm.
LibLabCon heading towards Orwell’s 1984?
Glorous !
John, it’s interesting that the US MSM has been less than forthcoming about the Al Qaeda elements of the so-called rebels, yet Jonny Dymond managed to find a bunch of Republican voters in Michigan who were worried about it all the same. Maybe not everyone is brainwashed by the establishment media anymore. I can’t tell if Dymond saw them as opposing action due to racism or guilt and shame over Iraq.
It is interesting to note that the BBC is not screaming from the roof tops that in the UK , France and the USA , there is an very large majority % of the public that does not want to get mixed up in yet another ME war.
This is this because the BBC , taking the liberal left lead of course, wants intervention on the side of the rebels. I really don’t understand why they do, but they do. There is much about the liberal left which mystifies me.
Once again the BBC and the liberal left show contempt for what ordinary people think. They seem to be unable to believe that in a democracy the people’s view actually counts for something. Or perhaps they just can’t believe that they are unable to manipulate the British people into supporting their liberal left views as they would normally do.
Perhaps the BBC is losing control of our thinking and hopefully our support. Politicians please note that in the modern world you can reach us, the ordinary people, and hear our views without going through the BBC. As someone posted today on another topic, the BBC is rapidly becoming an irrelevance . I hope that he/she is correct and that we are soon to be liberated from its malign influence and license fee tax.
Hi Doublethinker, you need to think again.”This is this because the BBC , taking the liberal left lead of course, wants intervention on the side of the rebels. I really don’t understand why they do, but they do. There is much about the liberal left which mystifies me”. Now if I am hearing the jungle drums correctly, the Stop the War movement is saying “hands off Syria”. I am against intervention, but can see there is a case to be made for it in terms of the use of chemical weapons.
No-one has yet explained to me why killing some civilians with chemical weapons is uniquely heinous and deserving of international retribution when killing 100000s of civilians with bombs, bullets and goodness whatever else is not and should attract no retribution
One involves lines… make that red ones.
The other doesn’t.
Apparently.
I will concede that the liberal left is split over intervention, some have consistently followed the line you mention above, others have reluctantly boarded the opportunistic bus driven by Milliband, but many others have always wanted intervention on the side of the rebels. I think that BBC coverage over the past months places them firmly in that latter camp.
Fair point, JPJ. But who the hell are the Stop The War Movement anyway to be given so much airtime, especially by the BBC? Their views are no more relevant than a group of blokes of like mind stood around a pub bar, but you’d think they were some kind of serious political party.
I think why the BBC is wanting the UK government to go into Syria is so that they can liken this government with Blair’s. Iraq was the big story when the BBCoids didn’t support Blair – now if Cameron supports an attack on Assad it would support the idea that this government on this issue is as bad as the last lot…(and of course in the BBCoids’ view a lot worse on everything else).
If Obama was against military intervention, the BBC would be against it.
Mardell still says He’s against it, and is mostly being forced into action by circumstances beyond His control. And Mardell is definitely dead-set against any military intervention.
Easy. For the Liberal Left, Islam must not be criticised, as that would be Islamophobic. Christianophobia on the other hand, is entirely legitimate.
I loath Dawkins, but he was correct when he criticised Islam for having contributed nothing of worth to humanity for centuries. The Left went bonkers, whilst his ceaseless attacks on Christianity are never criticised in the same way.
The Left are adept at holding and justifying entirely contradictory beliefs.
War is peace, doncha know
‘ FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH’
Yep he worked at Al Beeb right enough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avQKLRGRhPU…..obama sets a red line,then he denies he said that even though he did,now he claims the world set a red line,billy liar heh
Lose Jon Stewart and it’s like when the Graun readership doesn’t quite see Miliband and the BBC in the same way as they see each other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82pn9Ht5h60
Oh, and my comment du jour: ‘Some degree of varying confidence’
Wars have been fought on less. No, really.
The BBC did mention that the President now claims that it’s the US and Congress whose credibility is at stake, not His. No editorial comments in that report, of course. But the Beeboids know what He’s done, and they can’t deny it.
I wonder if there are any snarky Beeboid tweets or if Mardell will make some angry pronouncement next time he phones in to Today. If the BBC Twitterati are completely silent on this, it’s a sign of their bias.
We can still have a laugh
F@#$ Jon Stewart. He did a whole rally in 2010 to help the President he’s whining about now, and he’ll still work his ass off to support Hillary in 2016. All his complaints ring very, very hollow.
He sounded desperate and his audience’s laughter nervous
They can’t be that nervous. It’s all part of how St. Jon maintains his credibility in their eyes. He’s criticizing the President, see, so he can’t possibly be the Democrat tool Faux News accuses him of being, right? Never mind that all his criticisms come from the extreme Left. His Daily Show comrades did criticize the Occupiers once, but only because it was obvious those idiots weren’t doing it right, and were only going to be a drag on the Progressive cause by association. So he made fun of the Occupiers for a minute, just like he’s making fun of…..somebody whose name isn’t spoken out loud. Mostly he’s making fun of pundits and other politicians, but not The Obamessiah Himself. You don’t see any “red line” jokes accompanied by a photo of the President, right? When St. Jon moans about having to bomb Syria “because we’re in seventh graaaaaaade”, he’s attacking the pundits, not Him. It’s almost like Mardell’s baloney about outside forces making the President do something He really doesn’t want to do.
Believe me, everyone I know who still loves St. Jon will defend him to the end anyway. I can’t tell you how many times otherwise intelligent people I know swear to me that he criticizes both sides fairly.
It’s a charade because he and all his co-conspiritors will still support any Democrat 110% over a Republican or anyone not holding the approved thoughts. The same audience who trusted him when he swore up and down that his college roommate Anthony Weiner was a great guy and wouldn’t do something as pathetic as he was caught doing will still trust him implicitly now on anything, because sarcastic, self-righteous humor is a very effective technique if it’s fairly clever often enough.
But audience response’s were muted
whenever he sowed picture of St. Obama the cheering and clapping only happened when he flashed up pictures of middle aged (presumably right wing) white men .He flashed up pictures of the Bushes early on to reassure them (which they lapped up) but they still didn’t seem sure if it was all right to laugh at St. Obama
True. I remember having a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach back in early 2008 when he did a segment after one of the debates during the primaries making fun of all the candidates for pandering. Plenty of laughter after each one, until he got to Him, at which point……silence. Seriously. It was so obvious that Stewart actually said, “It’s okay to laugh at Him,” which got a nervous titter in response.
Points taken on board David. Thanks. Let’s hope he comes apart when he backs Hillary
Mrs Bill must be comedy gold ,surely?
Plus which you can laugh at her without being a racist
Donald Rumsfeld Blasts Obama’s ‘Red Line’ He Will ‘Blame Everybody..
Stick to the chips McCain.
There is nobody in media – and I mean nobody – who carries Obama’s water like Mark Mardell. In his latest missive he writes this:
“But Senator John McCain, the doyen of hawkish use of American power, has long been worried that President Obama has done too little and has not set out how his “shot across the bows” could make a real difference in Syria.
He thinks the US should not just declare Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should go, but act to encourage that outcome.
So he added in words that stress that policy is to “reverse momentum on the battlefield”, degrade President Assad’s capabilities, and help the opposition, including giving them weapons.
I am not certain if, in the terms of the motion, this would only be for a couple of months.
But what senators will vote on does seem to both tie the president’s hands and beef up the aims of America’s action”.
That is skillful writing indeed. With the flick of a pen (or is it click of a keypad) McCain is the “hawk” and Obama the “victim”. What is it that draws the moth Mardell to the flame? Has he pointed out that the Obama administration has made it clear that if they don’t get Congressional approval they’ll go ahead anyway? So who cares what McCain says?
Once again, discerning listeners, viewers and readers of Mr. Mardell will be scratching their heads saying, “something doesn’t make sense here”.
In conclusion, I would like to state in the spirit of Mr Obama’s latest comments (denying that he drew a red line in the sand) that I did not write the above even though evidence is to the contrary. Also I do not hold the views expressed within. That is just your impression from what I wrote – which of course I didn’t. Furthermore I do not believe existing circumstances are likely, and finally the world is to blame. Now lets get out there on the golf course…
Well said, Louis. The world wrote that. I can hear Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson singing it now……
We’ve already been arming various rebel factions. Republican hawks didn’t suddenly come up with that out of nowhere, and it’s not a new thing they’ve forced on the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief. Degrading Assad’s capabilities is exactly what the President said
He wanted to dointernational law and humanitarian righteousness instructs us to do. Again, not a new concept from warmongering Republicans. Kerry and Dempsey admitted openly to the Senate committee that their own – the President’s – plan didn’t have a 60-day limit written in stone, nor was there any way to rule out boots on the ground. None of this came from Republicans.Those nasty warmongers are going to tie the President’s hands and beef up the ultra-violence, are they? Instead of humanitarian missiles directed with pinpoint accuracy by My Little Pony dolls covered in glitter which will make those icky chemical weapons vanish in a puff of lavender-scented smoke to the sound of cheers from the nearby Smurf village, it’s going to be lots of ugly bombs which might actually kill people, delivered by Orcs, cheered on by a misshapen George Bush sitting at Sauron’s right hand, I guess.
You just knew one of Mardell’s favorite themes was going to show up at some point once the President started looking really bad: Trapped In A World He Never Made. If it all goes horribly wrong, it’s not His fault, you see. He was trying to be the responsible one, the adult in the room, the only one with moral principles and who has thought about this deeply and at length and considered all the options and outcomes.
…”it’s going to be lots of ugly bombs which might actually kill people…” – you can bet Assad has the bodies of children in the fridge ready to take out, thaw and display to BBC cameras.
David – would Obama have been elected were he white? Just wondering?
David will correct if wrong, but the Democrats would have run Hillary who was initially their front runner
No, Jeremy. I doubt He’d even have made it to Junior Senator from Illinois. And as Stewart says, it would have been Hillary all the way. And will be again.
LOL. However, how many listeners, viewers and readers of Lardy are not discerning enough.
what a senile mumbling idiotic buffoon head john mccain has become,i used to like the guy,but not any more,but what the hell is happening inside that warped brain of his just lately.let me educate you john mccain.ALLAH HU AKBAR is the war cry of al qaeda,when they are cutting off innocent civilians heads including children with breadknifes in syria they scream ALLAH HU AKBAR,when they are firing off mortars and hand grenades into civilian areas in damascus they are screaming ALLAH HU AKBAR,when they are cutting open the stomachs of injured syrian soldiers and eating there hearts and livers they screaming ALLAH HU AKBAR,that is the war cry of al qaeda and there supporters including those who live amongst us in the uk and we all know that,you never hear syrian soldiers screaming ALLAH HU AKBAR when they are fighting these damm al qaeda in syria,what more proof do you need john mccain,i rest my case.
“John McCain and ‘Allahu Akbar’”
By Robert Spencer.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-mccain-what-an-embarrassment/
This is slightly unfair. I say slightly, and only on one level. McCain is correct that what the BBC Style Guide has now decided to call “an Islamic invocation” can be used in the way you or I might say “Thank God”. Not every Mohammedan who utters that “invocation” in any and all circumstances is saying it with evil intent in the throes of jihad-lust. But that doesn’t excuse him from being an idiot about whom we’re apparently arming. McCain has disgraced himself on that score.
I’m not sure why we seem not to have learned yet that none of the so-called rebel factions anywhere between Gibraltar and maybe Thailand are the kind of people one would want in charge of any of these countries.
Islamic benediction!
Oh, Lor, that’s done it; the BBC Semantics and Pedantics teams can have a field day arguing which one it is, distracting from the fact anyone (outside delusional central) is well aware of, that these are not some words a holy geezer intones with reverence at a ceremony as the BBC would have folk believe, but a bloodlust battlecry at a moment of sheer violent hate.
You’re right, Span, my bad. That’s even funnier.
Any muslim approaching me even muttering ‘Alluh Ahkbar’ would be attacked.
Sen McCain must inform Major Hassan that he shouted the wrong thing before he murdered 13 people at Fort Hood.
Ah yes. The “workplace incident”.
It must have been McCain who told Mardell that there’s little indication that the Ft. Hood Jihadi had any particular motivation.
For What It’s Worth Dept:
An American WWII song that many Britons might recall as well:
“My God can kick your god’s ass!”
Life`s grand without having to listen to the BBC.
I confine myself to one point today.
What the hell was Justin Webb doing in Washington yesterday?
What use is he there-who paid(duh!) and why was he allowed to get a freebie over there at this time?
I see a glacier crying clearwater tears at his fool emissions…does NO-ONE at Today care passionately about the planet like me?
Justin Wet-Lettuce had no call to be there-Mark Mardell tells me all I need to know about the BBC.
Hence time away from the f***ers!
Jonny Dymond spells out all the Narratives at once: Opposition to the war is due to hyper-partisan Republicans wanting to stop the black man from doing anything, no matter what; Israel-Firsters are concerned; those of us who supported going after Sadaam admit we were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Sure, he gives a couple of other legitimate reasons – there’s no clear plan, and questioning the intelligence on who dropped the sarin – but that’s presented as skepticism towards Republicans who want to go to war and not so much as against the President.
Since this is a BBC report about an important US issue, there’s inevitably something they don’t want you to know:
Both Senators from Massachusetts – Elizabeth “Them Injuns All Have High Cheekbones” Warren, and Ed Markey, who replaced Kerry – have voted “Present”. Are they racists now for opposing Him?
Instead, we learn that a couple of Republicans who voted against the war resolution have Presidential aspirations (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more about voting for one’s own political ambitions instead of for the country’s best interests).
I see Jeremy Bowen found some Syrian students hoping to pose as human shields if the US starts Obombing. Is he embedded with the Syrian Army at this point? Funny how he’s not asking where all the US and UK activists who wanted to defend Sadaam have gone. And I especially noticed that Bowen didn’t sneer at or even acknowledge the Nazi salutes from all the heroic Syrian patriots. Maybe he sees nothing wrong with it. It’s an innocent gesture unless someone from UKIP does something resembling it.
I’m sure he’ll win another award for his journalism.
‘Is he embedded with the Syrian Army at this point?’
After the Egyptian Escapade and the value of Western media types getting slotted in dubious circumstances, given the best-dressed man-on-the-ground will doubtless need to sport full CW gear as well (all risks H&S-stamped), one really hopes that his action man outfit has something that doesn’t make him a target beyond the 72-pt ‘Martyr’ stencil most press sport these days.
Fog of war-wise, it may be hard to tell the difference even if not gunning for a PR score.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/sgtmonroe/USAF/002.jpg
‘Is that a boom mic or you just happy to die for the cause?’.
Check your six, Jezza.
Obombing! LOL, love it.
The Obomber.
Was there not some bus load of do-gooders from Britain last time round who drove to be human shields in Iraq?
Daniel Nasaw, the Beeboid in charge of what goes up on the US & Canada page on the webiste, has retweeted something from his friend and former Guardian colleague, Michael Tomasky (who was also on the JournoList) that it’s Bush’s fault nobody wants to go after Assad now.
If the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate-in-Chief doesn’t get His war, it’s Bush’s fault. BBC Narrative in a nutshell. So it’s Bush’s fault and partisan racists not wanting to support anything the black man does. It’s all clear to me now. There can be no legitimate criticism of The Obamessiah Himself.
So what’s his position that attacking Baathist tyrant
Sadam bad. Attacking Baathist tyrant Assad good?
Why because St. Obama says so?
Both have used gas on their own citizens or is he saying bush lied about that and Sadam didn’t?
Perhaps if he and the rest of liberal inquisition hadn’t spent so much time and effort convincing the American people that the war in Iraq was illegal,the Kenyan wouldn’t be having so a hard time getting support for intervention now .
Exactly.
Katty Kay is still completely clueless about the laws of the country in which she’s been working for the last several years, and on which she regularly expounds on television and radio in the capacity of an allegedly sharp, knowledgeable pundit:
What about Libya? Remember Libya? This is not a novel situation. Hello, Katty? Is anyone home?
On the subject of the laws of a country: If a country isn’t a signatory to a convention does ‘international’ law apply to it? (Syria isn’t a signatory).
Wikipedia – Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention
If the USA was to use Cluster Munitions would it have crossed one of the “World’s” Red Lines and expect to be bombed into submission? (USA isn’t a signatory). Wikipedia – Convention On Cluster Munitions
The BBC hates the US when it does things they consider to be outside international law, so yes, according to those bien pensant authoritarian fascists, whatever feels good applies. In this case, “international law”.
A better question would be: if a government signs away a little bit of national sovereignty – which is what happens when governments sign this kind of international “treaty” giving other people authority to be judge and jury over our actions – without the consent of its citizenry, is still viable?
Remember all that “illegal regime change” crap? Sadaam used chemical weapons against Iran, the Kurds, and his own people. Yet we were told not to harm a hair on his head because “we” (the French) supplied them to him.
What’s changed, other than the skin color and political party of the US President?
White phosphorus (Falluja)
Depleted uranium (huge swathes of Iraq)
And these are not chemical weapons?
But we had a Republican President then, with a couple of Jewish advisers.
an’, an’ wot abaht gunpowder dat’s a kemical innit?
But organic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2412700/Horrifying-fate-Assads-soldiers-executed-camera-Syrian-rebels.html…putin is right about the rebels……
Putin is right about a lot of things
That might be why the Russian electorate love him and the liberal inquisition hate him
There’s only one mention of McCain in that article , that he introduced the amendment. Its beyond me how that is doing all they can to present him as standard bearer.
You guys spout some nonsene, but the buscuits well & truely taken here!
Have to say, ye move to using Elizabethan is a novel twist. It may just catch on.
Tell it like it is lady
Wow, she mentioned the Keating Five. That’s going back a long way indeed. McCain somehow managed to come out of that scandal relatively cleanly (long story, background can be read here and here for those interested), and this woman saying that is meant to be a sign of die-hard support through thick and thin. If McCain still has a few functioning brain cells left, that surely hit him hard.
I notice that McCain wouldn’t look the woman in the eye until she started to raise her voice in emotion. Although one has to wonder, if she’s so proud about her family being in Syria from the beginning of recorded history, and that Assad’s secular government keeps the Christians safe, what’s her family been doing in Phoenix for 25 years?
i urge you david preiser and your fellow americans to write to your congressmen and women before next tuesday to demand they vote against against this war that obama intends to launch against secualar syria in the coming weeks,only you good americans can stop this war now,the failure to do so will give the red light to these al qaeda headcutting savages to launch a holocaust of murder against the christian and other minority groups in that great country call syria,the world will be watching american next week.lets hope the american people do the right thing and stop this bloody war for once and all.
Many people are, believe me. My Congressman already said on TV that he’s dead set against it (Mardell can’t call him a racist, and Dymond can’t claim he’s the kind who’ll do anything to block the President), so I don’t need to write him a letter. The only thing giving most sane people second thoughts is the idea of what we’d face with the US looking like an international joke for real this time (if you thought everyone hated us and laughed at us when Bush was in charge, just wait), and what we’d face domestically from a spurned Alinsky Acolyte-in-Chief who has already declared on more than one occasion that He could do whatever He liked by executive dictat, and supported by His well-funded Organizing for Soviet America, much of the media, and a hyper-partisan Federal government (infinitely more hyper-partisan than the handful of Republican Congressmen the likes of Mardell and Dymond demonize).
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-mccain-syria-plan-town-hall-96359.htmls….< karma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzH7BxFEzDs…fool on the hill
Just made the same point to an American on Twitter. Good to see that I’m not the only one to notice the diff btwn BBC support for Obama whilst we KNOW it would be 180 degrees diff were Bush still President.
Just dropped in to see what inanities Vance is spouting and yet again he proves truth and reality are on a different sphere to the one the rest of his inhabit.
“…91% of Americans oppose military action conveniently passed over…”
A totally false uncorroborated figure that Vance’s many socks and the swivel eyed loons forgot to pick up.
Might be worth checking out the real figures at Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/support-syria-action-lower-past-conflicts.aspx
I hope you are better at counting the yoghurt pots in your little truck.
“. Can you imagine the OUTCRY from the BBC during the Bush years had 91% of the public opposed HIS military policy?”
But they don’t so the entire blog entry shows the utter paucity of imagination that Vance is famous for.