Author Archives: Kerry B

The great unwashed are less than pleased with the Beeb. (Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

.  How long will it be until the BBC corrects the record on the Iraq-Niger yellowcake story? It must be hard when the ‘Bush lied’ subtext crashes like Joseph Wilson’s house of cards.

It is not surprising that Paul Reynolds, in his ‘analysis’,  fails to mention the discredited Wilson/Plame story, so gladly trumpeted by the BBC.

Uranium: Here the report stands by the SIS report that Iraq had indeed sought uranium from Niger. It adds in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well. It even says that the inclusion of the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union address was “well founded,” a finding which is at variance with that of the CIA.

Not a peep about Wilson. It must be a bit embarrassing now to have published stories like the following when the basis of them is so undermined.

Bush Questioned Over CIA Leak

US Diplomat Raises Iraq Dossier Doubts

Profile: Joseph Wilson

Since you are unlikely to hear of this from the Beeb, here, in part, is Robert Novak’s op/ed:

Like Sherlock Holmes’s dog that did not bark, the most remarkable aspect of last week’s Senate Intelligence Committee report is what its Democratic members did not say. They did not dissent from the committee’s findings that Iraq apparently asked about buying yellowcake uranium from Niger. They neither agreed to a conclusion that former diplomat Joseph Wilson was suggested for a mission to Niger by his CIA employee wife nor defended his statements to the contrary.

Wilson’s activities constituted the only aspects of the yearlong investigation for which the committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, was unable to win unanimous agreement. Peculiarly, the Democrats accepted the evidence building up to the Wilson conclusions but not the conclusions themselves. According to committee sources, Roberts felt Wilson had been such a “cause celebre” for Democrats that they could not face the facts about him.

For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein’s attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on official British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for Intelligence Committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the earth….[emphasis added]

Novak concludes by quoting Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts:

“While there was no dispute with the underlying facts,” Chairman Roberts wrote separately, “my Democrat colleagues refused to allow” two conclusions in the report. The first conclusion merely said that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife’s suggestion. The second conclusion is devastating:

“Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.”

The normally mild Pat Roberts is harsh in his condemnation: “Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had ‘debunked’ the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa . . . [N]ot only did he NOT ‘debunk’ the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.” Roberts called it “important” for the Intelligence Committee to declare much of what Wilson said “had no basis in fact.” In response, Democrats were silent. [emphasis added]

The BBC can spout off all it wants about ‘international reaction’ to the Butler report and Dyke can claim what he will. It would do better to just get down to eating a bit of crow.

UPDATE: Joseph Wilson continues to spin like a top but the major news outlets tend to either bury it (as with the New York Times and Washington Post) or ignore it altogether (as with the BBC). Michael Barone, political reporter for US News and World Report points out how reckless an approach this is.

All this is significant because for the past year most leading Democrats and many in the determinedly anti-Bush media have been harping on the “BUSH LIED” theme. Their aim clearly has been to discredit and defeat Bush. The media continue to fight this battle: contrast the way The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times front-paged the Wilson charges last year with the way they’re downplaying the proof that Wilson lied deep inside the paper this year.

Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis has argued that George W. Bush has transformed American foreign policy, in response to the threat of Islamist terrorism, more than any president since Harry Truman transformed our foreign policy in response to the threat of aggressive communism.

But there is one big difference. In the late 1940s, Truman got bipartisan support from Republicans like Arthur Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey, even at a time when there were bitter differences between the parties on domestic policy, and received generally sympathetic treatment in the press. This time, George W. Bush has encountered determined opposition from most Democrats and the old-line media. They have charged that “BUSH LIED” even when he relied on the same intelligence as they did; they have headlined wild and spurious charges by the likes of Joseph Wilson; they have embraced the wild-eyed propaganda of the likes of Michael Moore.

They have done these things with, at best, reckless disregard of the effect their arguments have had on American strength in the world. Are they entitled to be taken seriously?

Whilst Barone’s column is focused on “old media” based in the USA, it underscores the invisible footnote underlying a significant amount of the BBC coverage of the Iraq War — that ‘Bush (and Blair) lied’. Little wonder that the Beeb’s ‘value for money’ quotient continues to drop.

…against W. Apparently, some reporting stinks in Baghdad too. Here is the entire post.

The War against GWB

The new report by the US Senate regarding intelligence failure about WMD may be part of the war against GWB!

The question that they should ask themselves about is; what will happen if Saddam remained in power in regard to the issue of the international terrorism. Sooner or later; SH will side with the terrorists to kill as many people as they can. He showed his WMD in Halabja and the South of Iraq.

SH tried and has he succeeded to produce nuclear or other similar WMD he will not hesitate to use it any where it may come.

We are not supporting GWB neither against his opponents but really telling the truth about our dictator that we knew more than the others. If those who talk about WMD and the war should ask us and we will tell them that SH is a danger not only for Iraq but to the region and the world. This has been demonstrated by his several atrocities in the past.

Without the help of US to get rid of Saddam he may has stayed in power for hundreds of years by his sons with all his danger over the heads of all of us.

What GWB done is the right thing and it is good as far as that is going to change the Middle East into a better place for the whole world.

Nowadays one can smell the same thing which is in Al Jazeera from the BBC and the CNN!

He must be some kind of right wing nut. (Hat tip: Power Line)

The BBC, never known to flinch from airing dirty linen, becomes strangely hesitant when reporting on the Kerry-Edwards ‘love-in’. It is hard to imagine that they are reporting the same event as the LA Times [requires free registration] and the Washington Post [requires free registration]. In the Times story we read–

But praise for the two running mates was overshadowed by angry and mocking comments directed at President Bush. The tone was jarringly dissonant from the sunny message Kerry and Edwards have emphasized on their first few days together on the campaign trail.

Jessica Lange denounced the current occupants of the White House as “a self-serving regime of deceit, hypocrisy and belligerence,” accusing Bush of violating international law. Chevy Chase accused the president of invading Iraq “just so he could be called a wartime president” and quipped that the most recent book Bush had read was “Leader of the Free World for Dummies.”

In a song called “Texas Bandido,” John Mellencamp sang, “He’s just another cheap thug that sacrifices our young … You’re going to get us killed with your little white lies.” And Meryl Streep bemoaned Bush’s frequent invocation of religion, saying, “I wondered to myself through the shock and awe, I wondered which of the megaton bombs Jesus, our president’s personal savior, would have personally dropped on the sleeping families in Baghdad.”

Goldberg, who repeatedly referred to Edwards as “Kid” throughout the night, delivered the most inflammatory performance of the show in a comedy bit that involved a sexual pun playing off the president’s name.As the audience roared with embarrassed and horrified laughter, she retorted: “C’mon, you knew this was coming. It’s what I’m trying to explain to people: Why you asking me to come if you don’t want me to be me?”

The Bush campaign condemned Thursday’s concert fundraiser, which was produced by Rolling Stone magazine founder Jann Wenner and movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt noted that Kerry told CNN’s Larry King earlier in the day that he had not had time to get briefed about reports of possible new terrorist threats. Yet, Schmidt said, “he found time to attend a Hollywood fundraiser, filled with enough hate and vitriol to make Michael Moore blush.”

The Washington Post article contrasts the candidates differing values and includes these paragraphs:

At the fundraiser, Kerry praised speakers and performers, some of whom lambasted Bush as a liar, “thug” and killer. Singer John Mellencamp sang an anti-Bush song called “Texas Bandito,” in which he called the president “another cheap thug who sacrifices our young.” Actress Whoopi Goldberg repeatedly referred to Edwards as “Kid” and made a crude wordplay on the president’s name.

Kerry said every performer conveyed the “heart and soul” of America. Afterward, Kerry spokesman David Wade said: “Performers have a right to speak their mind. John Kerry and John Edwards speak their minds and Americans know what they believe.”

Where do the Beeb’s sympathies lie when they fail to report embarrassments like this? (Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt)

In this story of a dispute over the Olympic flame in Cyprus the BBC gives us this geographically-challenged nugget:

The flame, which is transported in a structure similar to a miner’s safety lamp while in flight, arrived earlier on Thursday at the coastal resort of Pathos, in the south-west. [emphasis added]

Someone needs a holiday. Paphos will do.

The BBC continues to flog F911, which is ok. But it should be fair about it and get its facts right, even if Mr Moore fails miserably on both points. The BBC headline ‘Moore film divides America’ introduces an article which notes both the devisive character of Moore and his propaganda. That would be fair enough if the article did not give impression that it is only Republican Bush supporters who have major issues with the film.

Michael Moore’s award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened to rave reviews – but not among supporters of President George Bush. The filmmaker has made it clear that he wants this film to send Mr Bush crashing to defeat in November’s presidential election. And Republicans have few kind words for Mr Moore. But while praise has been lavished on him following top honours at Cannes, reviewers are beginning to take a more critical look at the film.

Then follows a sampling of reviews, primarily quibbling over Moore’s abrasive style, but never questioning the honesty or factual basis of his ‘documentary’.

Contrast this with the non-right wing, non-Republican reviewers (previously posted by Ed Thomas here) and more recently by Nicholas Kristoff, Richard Cohen, and now, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball of Newsweek —

‘More Distortions From Michael Moore —

Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really aren’t very fair at all’

The BBC seems all too willing to accept and promote Moore’s opinion piece with no apparent concern for its basis in fact. Smells like bias to me.

unless you are, like the Beeb, willfully ignorant. Why else would Jonathan Marcus or Jon Leyne consider that the 9/ll Commission has weakened Bush’s case for going to war? Reporting on this story has been very selective. The 9/11 Commission has found circumstantial links to Saddam and al Qaida. What they have not been able to discover is a hand-in-glove linkage. To say “Probe Rules Out 9/11 Links“ is to mislead.

Anti-terror expert Andrew McCarthy exposes the shaky findings of the Commission here. John Hinderaker does what one of those fabled BBC ‘analysts’ could easily have done if so inclined — simply report and reflect on the numerous instances of contact between al Qaida operatives and Saddam. This is an exchange from yesterday’s 9/11 Commission hearing between Commissioner Fred Fielding and US Attorney, Pat Fitzgerald (who indicted bin Ladin in 1998 as a Manhattan federal prosecutor). See how quickly his testimony exposes the weakness of this report with which the BBC is so enamored.

This testimony is “regarding the allegation in the 1998 bin Laden indictment about an understanding between Iraq and al Qaeda:

FIELDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the panel, I really have very specific questions about a specific subject.

One of the hazy questions that surrounds Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida is really its relationship, if any, with Iraq and with Saddam Hussein. We’ve often heard that Osama bin Laden would not have been a natural ally, for religious reasons, for the composition and nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. And our staff report, as you just heard, basically says there’s no credible evidence of any cooperation between the two. However, there seems to be some indicia that there may have been. And, Mr. Fitzgerald, I’m delighted you’re here, because this first question really I wanted to ask specifically to you, because it relates to the indictment of Osama bin Laden in the spring of 1998.

This is before the U.S. Embassy bombings in East Africa and the administration indicted Osama bin Laden. And the indictment, which was unsealed a few months later, reads, “Al Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al Qaida would not work against that government, and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.”

So my question to you is what evidence was that indictment based upon and what was this understanding that’s referenced in it?

FITZGERALD: And the question of relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida is an interesting one. I don’t have information post-2001 when I got involved in a trial, and I don’t have information post-September 11th. I can tell you what led to that inclusion in that sealed indictment in May [1998] and then when we superseded, which meant we broadened the charges in the Fall, we dropped that language.

We understood there was a very, very intimate relationship between Al Qaida and the Sudan. They worked hand in hand. We understood there was a working relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, and they shared training. We also understood that there had been antipathy between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein was not viewed as being religious.

We did understand from people, including Al-Fadl — and my recollection is that he would have described this most likely in public at the trial that we had, but I can’t tell you that for sure; that was a few years ago — that at a certain point they decided that they wouldn’t work against each other and that we believed a fellow in Al Qaida named [Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, aka Abu Hajer al-Iraqi], tried to reach a, sort of, understanding where they wouldn’t work against each other. Sort of, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

And that there were indications that within Sudan when Al Qaida was there — which Al Qaida left in the summer of ’96 or spring ’96 — there were efforts to work on joint — you know, acquiring weapons. Clearly, Al Qaida worked with the Sudan in getting those weapons in the national defense force there and the intelligence service. There were indications that Al-Fadl had heard from others that Iran was involved. And they also had heard that Iraq was involved.

The clearest account from Al-Fadl as a Sudanese was that he had dealt directly with the Sudanese intelligence service, so we had first-hand knowledge of that.

We corroborated the relationship with Iran to a lesser extent but to a solid extent. And then we had information from Al-Fadl, who we believe was truthful, learning from others that there were also was efforts to try to work with Iraq. That was the basis for what we put in that indictment. Clearly, we put Sudan in the first order at that time as being the partner of Al Qaida.

We understood the relationship with Iran but Iraq, we understood, went from a position where they were working against each other to a standing down against each other. And we understood they were going to explore the possibility of working on weapons together. That’s my piece of what I know. I don’t represent to know everything else, so I can’t tell you, well, what we’ve learned since then. But there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other.

FIELDING: Thank you. That’s very helpful.

Very helpful indeed. I wonder if the BBC will report any of this 9/11 Commission news?

Jeff Jarvis catches the Nanny State defending the BBC against Fox News even though what Fox reported about the Beeb was true! Well, someone’s got to defend the little guy. (Via Andrew Sullivan)

UPDATE: John Gibson of Fox News replies to the ‘censure’. He notes that a BBC intern was one of the 24 complainants to OffCom. (Hat Tip: B-BBC commenter, StinKerr)

Fair play to Sarah Brown and the Beeb for this story on Iraqi blogs, especially since their coverage is a prime example of why ordinary Iraqis had to find alternative means of publishing news.

While reconstruction in Iraq remains fraught with violence and political infighting, the country is experiencing a surge in popularity of online diaries, or weblogs.Written by ordinary Iraqis keen to tell the world about life in the troubled country, the sites are also attracting the attention of a global audience keen to learn about the lives of local civilians.

One such blog is Iraq The Model, an online diary focusing mainly on politics and reform which is written and run by three Baghdad-based brothers – Mohammed, Omar and Ali.

Ali, a doctor, told BBC News Online that he and his brothers developed the blog because he wanted to send out a more positive message about events in his home country.

“More than 90% of major media outlets have a rather negative agenda and what’s the benefit of us doing the same?” he asks.

“We do feel optimistic about the future of Iraq, but we see many facts about Iraq that are not covered, which is a shame.”

“They [the media] ignore pictures of good relations between the Iraqis and the coalition and the good interaction between both sides, they only focus on bad events – like what is happening in Abu Ghraib.”

Let’s hope Sarah holds on to her job!

Our hearts go out to the family and friends of BBC cameraman Simon Cumbers who was murdered by terrorists in Riyadh as he and correspondent Frank Gardner filmed a report. Many questions remain as to whether Saudi Arabia will descend into further instability, but there is no question that anyone can become a target in this war on terror. I recently posted on Frank Gardner (and the BBC’s) questioning stance on the very idea of a ‘war on terror’. Though we may disagree on this point, all of us at B-BBC wish and pray for the speedy and full recovery of Mr Gardner and comfort to the bereaved family of Simon Cumbers.