You have to smile at the BBC’s continued adoration of Obama. President Narcissus and his aide Kerry have been utterly ouflanked by Putin and Assad in recent days and yet the BBC is doing all it can to suggest that Obama and Putin are on the same page. Obama cheerleaders like Mardell have struggled to keep their hero’s halo gleaming but his tortuous efforts to win over Congress to military action seem to causing Mardell some anxiety. Perhaps the biggest irony of all is that if Obama does still launch his missile strike, the primary benefactors will be the Al Queda “rebels”. Given today’s date, 9/11, one wonders if even the BBC see the irony in THAT?
OPERATION “SAVE OBAMA”
Bookmark the permalink.
US politicians and the media – left as well as right – are recognising that Obama and Kerry have got themselves into a right pickle, and have been outsmarted by Putin and Assad. Democrats openly saying they are embarrassed at Obama’s incompetence, that Kerry is a joke, and that Putin is playing them like a fiddle.
There is NONE of that sense from BBC’s “reporting”. The mess has been made by Obama and Kerry, and is just the culmination of Obama’s naive approach to foreign affairs. But the BBC line tends to be that it is all the Republicans and their (racist) obstruction to The One.
This made me smile
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/eternally-optimistic-guardian-reader-finally-admits-obama-is-dreadful-2013091079297
Russians are good in chess.
not that I would ever want to defend the BBC but Lardell appears to have well and truly turned on the Obamessiah.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24044008
he calls him “irrelevant”
and goes on to say that the Obamessiah …”made a speech that was clear but almost entirely lacking in passion and devoid of new arguments. Indeed, the first two-thirds seemed cut and pasted from earlier speeches”
ouch !
the scales have fallen from Lardell eyes. The messiah has feet of clay.
it’s only taken the bbc 5 years to start attacking BHO – whereas they attack any GOP president from their day of inauguration, if not before.
I think Mardell meant that the speech was irrelevant, not the President Himself. On that score the BBC’s US President editor had no comment. But not even Mardell could support last night’s lame duck speech, or find anything in it to praise. No “speech of quiet power” or any other such flowery language.
Only yesterday Mardell was telling us that the whole Deus Ex Putin thing could just leave the President looking like the smartest man in the room. So he must have assumed that the President had been working towards this sort of peaceful resolution all along (peaceful being a relative term, of course, if one is a Syrian). Yet this speech from a President trying to convince the public that He totally had the right to do what He said He was going to do but didn’t want to do but was morally justified in doing it was rather mystifying since He already knew He wasn’t going to do it, and knew that we already knew as well.
The reason the speech seemed to Mardell to be cut and pasted from previous speeches is that’s exactly what it was. The President was basically trying to defend His actions of the past two weeks now that it’s all over bar the shouting on the cable news networks. Mardell doesn’t seem to have understood. I think he was expected some sort of brilliant insight, some explanation of a new way forward. That’s his own blind faith talking. How could any of the things Mardell had hoped to see have been possible at such short notice. It would have been insane for the President to stand there and lay out even a basic plan for cleaning out the weapons or how long the President would allow it to go on. He should have just cancelled the speech or announced a postponement. Who would have blamed Him?
The interesting thing for me in all this is that what we’re seeing is that America’s place in the world is slipping fast, almost to the point that the world doesn’t need America anymore.
I’ve noticed this for a little while now but this latest incident with Syria has really moved it forward. Just look how isolated America is.
This will ultimately affect the BBC because we are painfully aware of their obesssion with America and how their main page is almost a “what’s happening in America today?”.
Hang on, Sinniberg, I thought Bush made us isolated and The Obamessiah was going to restore trust and esteem? That’s what Candidate Obamessiah always said He was going to do, and what the BBC hoped he would do, and it was specifically going to be by backing off and apologizing for our sins and not trying to do much on the world stage unless invited by the UN or whatever. How many times did we hear about how the US needed to learn its place in the world, stop trying to lead and influence so much? It’s become so engrained that that’s even one of the topics in Mardell’s new documentary on the US-China relationship.
Those of us who thought that might not be such a good idea were ridiculed and demonized. How is it possible, I ask, that we’re more isolated and even less influential now?
Now we’re seeing the fruits of such genius, and it’s funny how not very many people like it. How’s that hopey-changey stuff…..you know the rest. Enjoy your world led by China and Russia.
Now that the cold war is over, a return to the Monroe doctrine would help America’s image.
The ‘military-industrial complex’ (TM Dwight Eisenhower, Rep) could sell Saudi Arabia the tomahawks to level Damascus without involving the US at all.
Mind you Exxon-Mobil would miss out if there was no follow-up US invasion of Iran.
Don’t think this is Yank-bashing. Cameron and Hollande, representing BP and Total, are just as full of war fever as Obama. Join the dots.
OTH, Obama has stated that he wants to make America subject to international law/UN – that is stop America taking its own line and disregard the world.
If one takes this view, then Obama and his lefty advisers,( H. Clinton, Kerry, Jarrett etc) is playing the game very well, by letting public opinion “force” him to do what he really wants anyway..
I think you mean “force” Him not to do what He doesn’t really want to do anyway.
You are right.
America is going down, while China, and possibly Russia are on the way up. It is this slide from absolute power that America had after the fall of the USSR, that is so galling to the American leadership. Predictably, they respond with force, in the manner of a playground bully.
Playground bullies always back down when confronted.
And the French are still screaming behind the bully to give him one!
But The Obamessiah always intended to reduce our status. That’s why the far-Left supported Him, and that’s a big reason the BBC supported Him. He only threatened war because He backed Himself into a corner with His own BS. With Libya, He had to join in eventually because He was worried about His own reputation.
What we’re witnessing is one successful aspect of His goal of transforming the US.
Also, there are real geopolitical interests at stake besides what you see as our fragile national ego. You can’t really dismiss this in such superficial fashion.
I’m sure I heard Brigitte Kendall say that the Great Orator sounded like He was babbling.
She doesn’t exactly endorse Him here either:
Wobbly mood
“And there is little doubt that President Obama left St Petersburg looking somewhat weakened.
Far from winning new converts to his cause, he failed to broaden the international coalition of nations prepared to back military action.
At times he sounded defensive and distracted.
And now he faces an added problem – that the lack of enthusiasm for using force without UN approval shown by some leaders around the G20 table may adversely affect the already wobbly mood of the American public, and therefore the appetite in Congress for military action in Syria.
When asked how he thought the mood at G20 might affect the chances of congressional support for his plan next week, President Obama said it could cut both ways: it might put people off, but it might also make Americans more likely to rally round their president.
Perhaps he will win the endorsement of Congress.
Perhaps, in time, the United States and its allies will build the international coalition they seek.
But it is also possible that we will look back on this G20 gathering in the months to come and say – along with the vote rejecting military action in the British parliament – that this was the moment when the appetite for international intervention for humanitarians goals faltered, and this was the turning point which showed that the rest of the world no longer wants the United States to step in as the world’s policeman when other institutions fail to act – however great the crisis or grave the atrocity. “
It’s the temporary disappointment of the faithful when they notice for a split second that maybe their belief is misplaced. But it’s only a momentary dark thought. Give her time, though. It’s not like Kendall was actually criticizing the President’s actions or – perish the though – blaming Him for any of the mess from last week. This is from 5 days ago, so her tune may well be different now that He’s solved it all.
Now that there will be no Obombing of Syria, the President can act as if this diplomatic removal of chemical weapons (which Assad said he didn’t have until now) was His plan all along (Kerry’s already trying that one on for size), and Assad can carry on killing people as long as he doesn’t use unapproved methods. Win-win, a couple of dents hammered out of that increasingly tarnished Nobel Peace Prize (which the BBC still hasn’t dared mention), and the BBC will be right there to tell you, as soon as the message gets tidied up and as Media Matters and whatever’s replaced the JournoList spread it around.
Brigit Kendall is one of the good ones, as far as I can tell.
She saw enough in Russia as it collapsed, I think-and so has a mind of her own, as much as being a BBC reporter can have.Funny she never reached the heights of Rachel Burden or Jane Garvey though isn`t it?
Hi, this is off topic, your editorial and technical contact forms are broken.
I did want to ask if you had ever considered making your content available on facebook? I’m sure quite a few people would follow you.
Seems another pretty good way to get the message out there. 🙂
Cheers
A Facebook page would be easy for BBC trolls to swamp in order to discredit B-BB
Similar attempts have been made with regard to http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php – though the bogus site has been exposed for what it is.
I would add: “and is unsuccessful”.
‘A Facebook page would be easy for BBC trolls to swamp in order to discredit B-BBC’
Agree, at least as a means of interactivity. It could function as a broadcast-only complement, but I don’t know if comments can be disabled.
One only has to look at BBC FaceBook pages to see the zoo that all has become. I signed-up to a few for info-gleaning (and a few gems from editorial for here), but the comments are either barking or beyond belief.
In the UK they seem the preserve of any daytime warriors with no jobs, or jobs being there, and the foreign input is a hundred times worse. Newsnight had actual calls for tribal genocide recently which no BBC staff did a thing about even though alerted (one for the reporting BBBC as a hate site brigade). They may even still be there.
And this, along with ‘views not ours’ Twitter is how the BBC sees charging folk for their news in the future.
Unique.
Still seem to be (unless ‘[contact-form-7 id="8166" title="Editorial"] is something my Mac can’t unscramble).
Hope you get a reply and there is a solution. Unlike the BBC (esp. FaceBook pages) these do seem to get read and often acted upon.
Loved a line from Ian Pannell or whatever on the 10 O Clock news last night, saying that if Obama doesn`t bomb Assads forces-why, that would enrage the ..er..”more moderate” aspects of the rebel alliance…so is he prepared to upset those “more moderate” elements of the anti-Assad forces.
Maybe Ian or Mardy might want to tell us who these more moderate forces might be-they all look like Al Queda to me…and if not now, they sure WILL be once the corpses of the unreverted Muslims ther, have been cleared from Al Queda/Muslim Brotherhood chopping boards.
Ah, but Obama looks an oaf NOW…so let`s worry about that another time…and certainly NOT on this day…might upset a few relatives.
Oh to be a BBC mayfly…all heroes and truthtellers for one day in their lives..if they dare to dream so big…
Even with all the journalists already working the US beat, BBC News has sent Jane Hill to the US to stand outside the building on Capitol Hill to give you updates on this vote that isn’t going to happen. I guess James Naughtie and Evan Davis went home already.
The BBC’s task today is to push the Narrative that only the President’s “credible threat” of military action got Assad to cave in. He truly is the new Teddy Roosevelt, I see. I wonder if the BBC will now start backing away from those tragic refugee stories Bowen was pushing last week. I mean, if He’s saved the day, there can’t really be a crisis any more, right? If you notice less stories about refugees and the continued killings of civilians from the civil war which, as far as I’m aware, hasn’t exactly stopped, you’ll know why.
Your license fee hard at work.
Just saw Huw Edwards actually ask a weapons inspector from the US about how we’d actually know if Assad was telling the truth about what weapons he had and where they were. Edwards admitted that the BBC has been getting that question from a lot of viewers. So maybe not everyone has been brainwashed.
As a matter of interest, did he get an answer?
I know the media demands on our behalf every detail nowadays (Yamamoto would have been conflicted), but I merely ponder if telling Assad the snooping plan is the smartest play of not many to date?
Yes, the weapons inspector who had great experience in Iraq assured us that weapons inspectors know what they’re doing.
A link from a US chum who seems to feel that his country’s media are being less than effective in sharing all possible views on a weighty subject…
http://www.nextgeneration.tv/?cmd=mpg&load=8848&mpid=517
Now Edwards is talking to a recent college graduate who is having trouble finding a job in his chosen field. The young man – who is black, by the way, but thankfully it doesn’t seem to be the reason he’s there – wants to be an actuary, of all things. Edwards seemed a little stunned. “That’s a very specific” line of work to be seeking.
The young man was not especially articulate, with moments of poor grammar and the verbal flotsam that litters so many people’s speech these days (I, like, do that myself among friends, but try hard not to, like, do it during interviews). But the problem seemed to lie in the CV he sends out. When Edwards asked if he’s getting any responses and what kind of responses he gets, the young man explained that, while he doesn’t get many responses, some companies give him advice on problems with how he wrote his CV and what he can do beh’-ah. Oh, and in the meantime, he’s working in a restaurant because he’s smart enough to know that he shouldn’t have too much of an unemployed gap in his CV.
In other words, this is hardly the most useful case study the BBC could present as someone getting stiffed because there aren’t enough jobs out there. Probably an intelligent, hard-working guy, but not really a victim of Tory austerity. Narrative fail.
Also, Edwards kept saying he was looking for work in the finance industry, but every actuary I’ve ever met (and I know a few, including an old roommate) worked in the insurance industry. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs.
BBC News Channel, top of the hour:
“Intense fighting in Syria despite political” negotiations. I missed that last word because I laughed out loud when the Beeboid said “despite”.
Not despite, BBC: because. They all know they can carry on as usual, so what’s to stop them? Is the President going to waggle His finger at them?
It’s begun: proof that the President’s speech last night is working. The BBC put together a collection of opinion-mongers’ reactions in the US media to inform you of the general reaction to His speech. Most if it is not good at all. There’s a rare violation of Rule #1 because even though the only person for whom they gave a partisan warning label was conservative, there were two other conservatives (or one and a half, since Noonan supported The Obamessiah in 2008) they didn’t label. Must be slipping, or maybe haste made them overlook it and it will be corrected later. No Leftoids were labeled, of course.
But never mind all that. The proof that His speech worked comes at the end.
Despite the negative reaction among commentators, a CNN poll found 61% of those who watched the speech now support the president’s Syria policy.
“The poll suggests that he did what presidents rarely do: change people’s minds, if only temporarily,” David Kusnet, former head speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, wrote for CNN.
“With down-to-earth arguments and a lofty conclusion, last night’s speech was a model of how to turn an audience around, point by point.”
I’ll pause while we all wipe the tears of laughter from our eyes.
Which plan is it, then? The Obombing plan? No, that’s not happening now, so nobody can approve or disapprove. The diplomacy plan that wasn’t working? No, that was dead once the Red Line dance began. The new diplomacy plan? Whose plan is it, really? Putin’s plan? Hmm…
This is very silly. The President did not turn national opinion around on the plan He and His Administration have been pushing for the last two weeks, or the one on which Congress was supposed to vote today, or the one about which His speech last night was originally supposed to convince us. Because that’s all over, not going to happen. This new poll is about the new plan not to do anything, which is what most people already wanted. How can He have changed their minds?
CNN is a joke, and so is the BBC for reproducing this as the real truth. I guess Mardell will have to say a few Our Presidents and do a little penance as he comes up with a way to correct his blog post today about how ineffective the speech was.
The American comments on Putin’s NYT op-ed ‘A Plea for Caution From Russia’ are very revealing about the American national psyche too.
There is some of that, yes. And there isn’t necessarily any shame in that, on one level. Mardell’s response was also revealing, in a parallel sense.
The thing is, even people who can’t stand the President, never wanted this, think He’s the Anti-Christ/Muslim/Communist/Kenyan/Insert-Shibboleth-Here still have the tiniest sliver of a molecule of respect left for the office, above the man, as our face to the world. We don’t like it when, as the kids say, He doesn’t represent. We know it doesn’t help our best interests. I don’t think most people really want the President to fail on the international stage. Some do, no doubt, but not most. Domestically, sure, bring on the failure. Any failure of His is a boon to the country’s future. Er, some say. But when it’s geopolitics, national interest time, there’s still some sense of shared interest, for lack of a better term. Patriotism isn’t always about tedious jingoism or mockable flag-waving.
Yes, there’s something on a personal level as well. This isn’t the time or place to discuss how one’s sense of self is affected in times like this, not totally unlike when one is forced to question any element on which one bases self identity. Another fun discussion would be how the die-hard supporters in the MSM and the BBC are affected in this way when something makes them question their belief in Him. Apologies for the excessive digression, but it’s your own fault for bringing psyche into it. 🙂
If you think about all the “Why Do They Hate Us” navel-gazing back when Bush was supposedly isolating us and making us weaker and more despised internationally than ever before (I look back on that time fondly now), there was an element of “why should we care about what Europe thinks?”, if you know what I mean. People here have probably noticed a similar attitude in my comments from time to time. But that was when one supported, at least to some extent, Bush’s foreign policy.
Now, though, it seems that nobody outside of the White House, Nancy Pelosi’s office, DNC HQ, and a certain media complex in Salford supports or attempts to support what this President is doing. And it seems that those who’d like to support Him don’t even understand what the hell’s going on. According to a recent BBC video report, apparently even middle-aged (Seattle?) Washington hippies can’t figure out how to support the man they happily voted for twice.
The freak-out you’re seeing has more than one facet to it, I think. If the Left-wing MSM wasn’t still so dedicated to a man instead of their country’s interests, there’d be a lot more of them telling the Putin who blasted the bejeezus out of Georgia (you notice I’m not mentioning Chechnya), continues to arm Assad and Iran and heavens knows who else, and imprisoned and/or poisoned his political enemies, to get bent. Instead, there’s bitching at the NY Times for giving a platform to the meanie to slap the President, and whining about a speech that didn’t rekindle their faith.
Does this all sound a tad defensive? Yeah, probably. But it’s not my fault, you see.
I keep thinking what Christopher Hitchens (as an American citizen) would be saying right now. We know he argued for the invasion of Iraq. But Syria…. after God is not Great? Its global religious scrabble! And our political representatives wading knee deep in hypocrisy….
putin he may be a commie.but you have to admire the guy,when he first took office the first thing he done is wiped out the islamist chechen al qaeda terrorist threat to his country with a iron fist,the terrorists unlike in the uk think twice about attacking russia because they know what will come there way and it wont be pretty,as for assad,ok he is no angel,but i tell you what,without him in power the christian and other minority groups in syria would be slaughtered for certain by the so called free syrian army rebels who are just in fact al qaeda head chopping terrorists.that obama and the bbc for some strange reason fail to understand.
And you ever noticed that Russians nowhere in the Middle East are ever taken hostage?
There`s reasons for that-but the BBC won`t be telling us any time soon!
I heard some where ( a docu. about Russian special forces I think) that some Russian diplomats where taken back in the 70’s. But the heads of the kidnapers were delivered to the ‘owning’ embassy and it hasn’t happened since
The Russians kidnapped a family member of the guy who kidnapped their diplomats and got them released in exchange. No more kidnaps of Russians after that. It was open season on western hostages however.
Nobody thinks Russia is controlled by the Jews. Simples.
Everyone agrees with their foreign policy?
Of course not. Opposition to foreign policy is just the rationalization we get from many quarters, particularly the BBC and defenders of the indefensible, about all those attacks on the US, US citizens, etc. I’m talking about who gets blamed for that foreign policy.
I was being ironic the real reason that the Russians tend not be targeted is simple cost/benefit analysis
i.e. the only concession the Russian government is likely to make is chocolate sprinkles on your polonium cappuccino
I think there’s more to it than that.
http://www.assyriatimes.com/assyrian/news/george-galloway-defends-syrian-christians-against-obamas-al-qaeda/3515.. oh dear,you have done it now obama,you have upset george galloway !!!!
Galloway’s conversion on the road to Damascus is down to his sponsors’ generosity, but the BBC’s treatment of Syrian Christians could be down to fear that the Black Messiah won’t get his war.
This is called hedging, with concern for a minority taking the place of derivatives. You still get some profit – concern for a minority is good PR, after all – even though your main investment has flopped.
We know that Galloway is an opportunistic politician, the fact of the matter is that he’s just been dealt a hand here that is impeccable. His tirade here against Obama and Cameron is perfectly just. This is what is happening- its “blowback” live, its the vivid confirmation of what we all knew the CIA & British were doing in Afghanistan against the Russians, when they backed the jihadists. And quite frankly its deja vu for the political haut-volee, that’s why Galloway gets so excited here. I don’t begrudge him this political orgasm, though I’m envious that he’s actually visited the place.
For a superb analysis of Obama’s total foreign policy failure, read here:
The Citizen of the World Presidency –
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-citizen-of-the-world-presidency-1/
It turns out I was somewhat in error in my statement yesterday about why the President’s
dithering apologiaspeech about Syria sounded familiar to Mardell, as if parts of it were copied and pasted from His earlier speeches on the subject. They were, but there’s more to it than that, which I missed the first time.The President was actually channeling His cowboy predecessor, the man whom He once corned relentlessly.
Obama lifted his Syria speech from Bush
Extracts:
Obama said: “I know Americans want all of us in Washington — especially me — to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home. . . . It’s no wonder then that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.”
And then:
Hmm, that sounded familiar. In his October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, making the case that the United States must hold a Baathist dictator who used chemical weapons on his people to account, Bush declared: “Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action. . . . These are all issues we’ve discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.”
There’s more. Read the whole thing. Thiessen is a former Bush apparatchik, so he ought to know a Bush speech when he sees one. Imagine the howls of derision from Beeboids if anyone other than The Obamessiah had done this. Maybe that’s why Mardell was left seriously underwhelmed by the man Richard Bacon called the greatest orator of our time: his subconscious knew it was Bush and soured his stomach.
Spare a moment of pity for poor Mark Mardell, who had to suffer through reading Putin’s op-ed ridiculing the US President and the US in general in yesterday’s NY Times.
Putin’s jabs strike home
One can almost see Mardell wince and grit his teeth as he reads each paragraph. He feels the President’s pain. It’s especially galling for him because he agrees with most of it.
Never mind what this means about US interests, or what it means for geopolitics going forward, or stability in the Middle East, or anything else. Putin was looking to increase his country’s position against the US in general, but Mardell isn’t focused on the big picture. As always, this is about how things affect Him.
Pity the poor BBC US President editor, having to watch The Obamessiah take a public bruising.
Well done Putin for pointing out that a non-signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention doesn’t break ‘international law’ but a member of the UN that ignores UN Charter Article 2 does.
This might cause a wince, too…
http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-atlantic-magazine-cover-features-obama-as-the-drone-warrior/article/2534261
It should be “The Drone Ranger” with Kerry as his naive-American sidekick “Bonzo”.
The missing “T” is deliberate.
And doing about as well at the box office of public opinion as the recent movie……
Remember when the BBC was skeptical about the US’s ability to detect and discover weapons of mass destruction?
US intelligence credibility suffers blow
The Robb-Silberman commission may have been set up in the wake of the intelligence failure over Iraq and its missing weapons of mass destruction, but its conclusions are of more than historic value.
They throw the debate forward to the question of whether or not the US has the right intelligence capabilities to detect and deal with both current and future threats from weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
And the commission’s conclusion is largely in the negative.
As the commission makes clear, US credibility was put on the line over the existence of an Iraqi WMD programme – and as a result of nothing being found, it has been severely undermined.
With the credibility and reliability of intelligence called into question, there are serious consequences as the US tries to fashion new policies and alliances to deal with North Korea and Iran.
Ah, good times…..good times……
Operation Save Obama continues at the BBC:
Syria crisis: Did Obama’s speech change views?
President Obama says he will pursue diplomatic efforts to remove Syria’s chemical weapons but has ordered the US military to “be in a position to respond” if such measures fail.
In a televised address, he said he had asked Congress to postpone a vote authorising the use of force. The BBC’s Rajini Vaidyanathan watched the address with people in Washington.
Even Mardell has admitted that the vast majority of the public didn’t want war in the first place. Now we still don’t want it, but the President changed our minds? Oh, hang on, this time it’s about how the speech might change people’s minds about doing a bit of Obombing. Except the speech wasn’t really about changing anybody’s minds at all. It was the President acting tough while climbing down. “I really was going to do it, I swear. Just wait til next time. You’ll see.” That’s what it was. The speech wasn’t ever intended to change anybody’s mind. The President, Samantha Power, and His idiot speechwriters thought this was going to prop up His image now that He’s backed off. Again. If not, what was all that, “I’ve listened to your concerns, but….” business? He’s practically telling people He’s not that worried about changing minds about the policy. It’s about changing minds about trusting Him.
The subtext is: Did the speech change public opinion about Him? It’s always about Him. At least Rajini Beeboid mentioned US credibility before worrying about His.
Notice the Leftoid woman who hated Bush’s foreign policy is now in favor of military strikes. What happened to Iraq Fatigue™? I wonder whom Mardell blames for her feeling that the President has no policy? Is she just unhappy about going to war under the direction of a person not like her? That’s his reason for pretty much any opposition to one of His policies.
Please watch its brilliant
Wonderful…lots of “awe” indeed!
If this doesn`t get onto the BBC news very soon-I`ll be most surprised!
Now even the BBC is confused about what they’re reporting:
Syria crisis: ‘Hope for peace’ as US-Russia talks begin
What peace? For whom? Did we start Obombing and I didn’t notice and now we’re in peace talks?
The Russian and US foreign ministers have begun a crucial meeting in Geneva on a plan to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control.
Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry said they hoped the plan could avoid military action against Syria.
The UN has confirmed it has received documents from Syria on joining the Chemical Weapons Convention, a key step in the Russian plan.
Syria’s president said it would submit arms data one month after signing.
The US accuses the Syrian government of killing hundreds in a chemical attack in the Ghouta area of the capital, Damascus, on 21 August. The government denies the allegation, blaming rebels.
Russia announced its proposal for dealing with the escalating chemical weapons crisis on Monday, as the US Congress was preparing to vote on whether to back President Barack Obama’s moves towards military strikes.
Oh, I see. Never mind that the President did a big “Never mind”. We’re holding peace talks over an existential war. Bush and Cheney must be falling all over themselves with laughter.
At least Paul Adams (inset “Analysis”) realizes that we can’t magically collect everything Assad has, and that Putin is going to veto any possible Obombing clause put in there. It’s about time somebody at the BBC got real.
The BBC’s James Robbins, in Geneva, says these are critical talks, aimed at breaking two and a half years of deadlock over Syria and stripping President Assad of his arsenal of chemical weapons.
Our correspondent says the American and Russian teams, led by Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, are unusually large – packed with weapons experts as well as diplomats.
He says the idea is that detailed talks on the practicalities of chemical disarmament will run in parallel with the hard political graft between Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov – but it is expected to be a lengthy process, as each side tests the other hard to see if they really can find common ground.
Chemical weapons, blah, blah, blah……weapons experts, blah, blah, blah…..Yeah. So?
Mr Lavrov said: “I am sure that there is a chance for peace in Syria. We cannot let it slip away.”
I ask again: what peace? For whom?
Arab League, yada, yada, yada, ……Assad’s stockpile, yada, yada, yada……Chemical Weapons Convention, yada, yada, yada….Yeah, so?
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said the Russian plan “must be treated with great caution”, and experts have pointed out the difficulty of conducting such a process in a war zone.
The main Syrian armed rebel group has already refused to co-operate.
Gen Salim Idriss of the Free Syrian Army said he categorically rejected the plan, and insisted that the most important thing was to punish the perpetrators of chemical attacks/
Whoopsie.
More than 100,000 people have died since the uprising against President Assad began in 2011.
And except for one batch of them, none due to chemical weapons. So I ask again, BBC, peace for whom?
Answers on a burned-out shard from an ancient Christian church……
The difference between Putin and Obama
Or this:
INBBC’s veiled pro-Islamic (Sunni) political reporting on Middle East is redundant; Islamic ‘Al Jazeera’ does it unveiled.
And yet haven’t some Beeboids gone to work for Al-J? What does that say about what’s left behind?
Readers may enjoy this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/cartoon/
Coming soon: Mark Mardell says it’s an enormous accomplishment for the President.
I see Mardell has RTed something which JournoList founder and extreme Progressive opinion-monger who is granted private meetings with the President and White House staff to coordinate their message and is allowed to brief Senators on policy, Ezra Klein, found “an interesting take” on what Putin’s up to. Apparently, his position on Syria is intended to constrain the US. Imagine that. This is something that had to be pointed out to them?
On Monday, Mark Mardell was breathing a sigh of relief about this new Special Relationship with Putin. His intellectual contortions to find ways to make this a success for the President were on full display:
It is difficult to say if President Obama genuinely thinks this could be a resolution or if he is going out of his way to give peace a chance.
How could He be giving peace a chance if He didn’t think there was a possibility that this would work? This makes no sense whatsoever. If He doesn’t think there’s any possibility, why try it? Either Mardell’s out of his mind, or he’s saying the President is.
I grant you it could be both.
Mardell also said:
At the end of the process he could just look like the smartest guy in the room – if Syria really was on track to give up its weapons, going to Congress and delaying action wouldn’t look so dumb.
Reality today:
U.S., Russia reach agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal
Senior administration officials had said Friday the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.
The Russians had made clear in talks here between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kerry that the negotiations could not proceed under the threat of a U.N. resolution authorizing a military strike. Russia also wanted assurances that a resolution would not refer Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the International Criminal Court for possible war-crimes prosecution.
President Obama has said that the unilateral U.S. use of force against Syria for a chemical attack last month remains on the table. But consideration of that action, already under challenge by a skeptical Congress, has been put on hold pending the outcome of the Geneva talks.
Oops.
The BBC’s US President editor again:
If it seems they and the Russian aren’t serious, exhausting all diplomatic possibilities might convince a few more members of Congress to vote his way for military action.
The real danger would be getting dragged into a long-running mess, where weapons inspectors are given the run-around and Mr Obama looks gullible.
And BBC journalists.
If Congress didn’t want to authorize military action last week, why would they suddenly want to by January if Assad hadn’t turned over all the weapons? His having them at all wasn’t ever the issue: it was the use of them. That argument hasn’t changed. And if it turns out that the President really did get played, why would anyone in Congress listen to Him?