Double Standards And Leaders

Spot the missing President in this BBC report about the latest violent attacks by Guantanamo Bay inmates on their guards. We hear about the military not being able to decide what to do, as well as Congressional “restrictions” (translation: Congressmen simply don’t want to deal with the ensuing political mess if any of the POWTs are given a civil trial in their constituency), and we hear about how the hunger strike and violence is in protest of the fact that all these people are being held without charge or trial indefinitely. We even learn that one of the reasons the prisoners aren’t being released all over the place is concerns that they might be harmed if they go back home. Isn’t that nice? The other worry, of course, is that many of them go right back to the battlefield, which is the reason POW camps exist in the first place.

But no mention at all of the President of the United States. It’s a glaring omission, not only because He authorized military tribunals to start up again two years ago. After, of course, the fairly messy result of the civilian attempt the year before. Does He bear no responsibility? Another reason this is an unacceptable omission on the BBC’s part is that the President can simply release them all without sending them back to a dangerous homeland (if that is in fact even a real concern for many of them). There is precedent (e.g. the Uighurs, and everyone’s favorite “Briton”, Binyam Mohammed, who was later, after the BBC received complaints from both sides, demoted to “UK/British resident”) and it’s not impossible for someone capable of diplomacy and deal-making.

George Bush actually released, or transferred to custody in other countries, about 500 detainees during the six years he was in office after the establishment of the prison. Human Rights Watch, a trusted source for the BBC, puts the figure at 532. According to this New York Times interactive feature, there were 242 being held when Bush left office. There are currently 166 detainees, which means that the Nobel Peace Laureate-in-Chief, on the other hand, has released or transferred a mere 76 people in five years. His track record is not good, yet the BBC doesn’t even mention Him in the report about them protesting at what is essentially His failure.

Are there serious obstacles to releasing or transferring all of them? Sure. So why can’t the BBC mention that in His defense? It wouldn’t be biased, so long as they didn’t attempt to shift blame away entirely. The article as it stands does that.

Of course, the BBC is well aware of the President’s failure on this issue, which is why they casually put a link in the sidebar to Andrew Marr’s gently critical special report from before the last election. But is that good enough? It is for the BBC.

Barack Obama’s presidency: Why hope shrivelled

Marr covered a lot of ground in his report, but I’ll keep to a couple relevant and timely points. First, the failure on Guantanamo.

Marr did mention that the President’s early promises to shut down the prison failed.

But Obama’s early promises to close Guantanamo Bay and bring about a new era of trust between the US and the Muslim world have turned to dust. He over-promised.

That’s a fair assessment in its own way. Of course, all politicians over-promise on a regular basis, so that’s hardly a scathing critique.  Matt Frei (ex-BBC, former Washington correspondent and anchor of BBC World News America) was still hopeful and positive even a few months after He was elected and it was clear that not everything was going according to plan:

With a flick of a pen he declared the intention to close down Guantanamo Bay. He reached out to staunch enemies like Iran without sounding craven. He began to talk to the Muslim world rather than at it.

Frei and the rest of the BBC just ran with His promise, never questioning whether or not it was possible or wise. Justin Webb even enthused after that video kiss He blew to Iran early on:

The point is that Mr Obama understands that case himself – the case that says: “Come off it, America IS better, and has a decent case to put before the court of world opinion.”

But he also understands that there may be advantages to not making it, indeed to making the opposite case (to the extent that he did in that al Arabiya interview).

In fact, I wonder whether he really disagrees with the Krauthammer position.

George W Bush said what he thought. The new man is capable of sophistry in the matter of confusing his enemies…

(A cynic might ask who really are His enemies….)

At the time, Frei and Webb were the two top Beeboids in the US, the two highly experienced, world-class journalists the BBC expected you to trust. And they got it wrong. But the BBC is aware now. It’s just not really His fault, you see. Which brings me to the timely points which aren’t strictly relevant to the Guantanamo story.

Marr wheels out a couple of major falsehoods in his attempts to shift blame for the President’s failure to achieve absolutely all our dreams. One of them is a canard we hear a lot from the BBC:

It is quite true that in Congress, the Republicans waged a brutal and remorseless campaign to frustrate him.

In actual fact, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of His reign. They rammed through ObamaCare and spending bills without governing by consensus, without reaching across the aisle. The Republicans could do nothing to stop it. Mark Mardell even once referred to that as a “Golden Age”. So it’s absolutely false to claim that Republicans have blocked Him the entire time.Yet it’s so entrenched in the BBC mindset that even the US-born ex-Guardianista Daniel Nasaw peddles the Narrative. No need for a conspiracy or memos or editorial directives for this kind of Corporation-wide groupthink if they all think the same way anyway. The bias occurs naturally. They don’t even realize they’re doing it.

The very next sentence takes it further.

The level of vituperation and abuse Obama took at the hands of insurgent Tea Party activists went far beyond civilised disagreement.

And civilians protesting stopped Him how, exactly? But never mind the how: consider what Marr’s said there. “Far beyond” civilized disagreement? Really? We all know the BBC and the Left-wing media loved to tar the entire movement, millions of people, with the actions of a few. It was all part of the Narrative that there is no legitimate opposition to the President’s policies. In stark contrast, the BBC praised the Occupy Wall St. movement. At no time did they ever focus on the violence and criminal activity, or declare that the movement itself was tainted because of all the vandalism, rapes, deaths (here’s just a small sample, all of which the BBC refused to cover), or even when Occupiers were arrested for trying to blow up a bridge. In fact, the BBC censored the news of the plotters’ Occupy bona fides. None of this even remotely happened with any Tea Party groups or protests. But that clearly hasn’t stopped the BBC from their smear job. Actually, they were doing it from day one. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how the BBC treated the Occupy movement with similar negativity.

In the very first BBC report, Kevin Connolly insulted all of them with a sexual innuendo. Is this civilized, BBC? It hasn’t gotten any better since.

But let’s focus on “civilized disagreement”. Several BBC programmes in fact relish in over-the top stuff. The first incident which comes to mind is Eddie Mair calling Boris Johnson “a nasty piece of work”. Far beyond civilized disagreement, or merely a robust interview? Question Time is usually a good source of ugly statements which go far beyond civilized disagreement. We recently saw a Labour activist call a UKIP candidate a “disgusting” woman. Far worse is the week-long celebration over Margaret Thatcher’s death. Andrew Marr and Mark Mardell and all the rest of the Beeboids can frown and scold and defame the Tea Party movement and its participants, but they have refused to similarly cast the harsh light on opposition to Thatcher. Will the BBC similarly condemn the unions and Labour and apparently the vast majority of Northern England for going far beyond civilized disagreement in their opposition to the Iron Lady? Or is only The Obamessiah deserving of such special protection?

Is making “Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead” a chart-topper out of hatred for someone far beyond civilized disagreement? How about if a BBC Digital Media Executive tweets that he’s put it on his playlist? What about burning poppies? What about the violence and vandalism during those “student” protests? What about all the BBC employees who tweeted vicious and vulgar things about Mitt Romney or Republicans or Sarah Palin (see the “In Their Own Tweets” page on this site)? All just the isolated acts of a few, no reason to tar the entire BBC, or all opponents of Thatcher’s policies, or all opponents of UKIP, or all opponents of tuition fees or all opponents of budget cuts? Okay, but then we must also condemn Marr and the rest of the BBC for smearing millions over the acts of a few.

The reason I bring that up is because it’s clear that Marr was trying to shift blame away from the President. While he realized that it was never possible to fulfill all those promises, he doesn’t really blame Him for any of the failures. It’s always someone else’s fault. So even when the BBC links to his report as a subtle way to admit the President has failed on Guantanamo, there’s plenty of blame-shifting to be found both in the Guantanamo article and Marr’s feature.

They just can’t help themselves. But the double standards are clear.


The BBC approach to Lord Goldsmith seems to vary, doesn’t it? When he was advising Tony Blair that it was OK to assist in the liberation of Iraq, his judgement was questioned. But when he argues that Britain should open it’s arms and embrace some of the Jihadi scum currently detained at Guantanamo, he’s suddenly a good guy! The BBC line on Islamic terrorism is consistent and profoundly dhimmified. The meme is that all those in Gitmo are innocent and it is vital that the UK accepts as many as possible, after all it’s what Obama wants. And so the New Year begins with the UK actually seeking to import terrorists and the BBC sees no wrong in this and provides no space for those who hold that this is reckless beyond words.


Turned on the PM news on BBC Radio 4 only to be confronted with the full on BBC whingeing mode on behalf of the inmates of Guantanamo. This time it’s newly released video footage of Omar Khadr being asked by Canadian officials in 2003 about events leading up to his capture by US forces that is causing BBC consternation. Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier in Afghanistan in 2002. Frank Gardner was promptly allowed to come on and pontificate about just how damaging this footage is to the image of the US around the world, and the Muslim world in particular. I agree with Frank and I share his outrage. I am outraged at the civil and caring manner in which the Canadians conducted the interrogation and I am even more outraged that Khadr was captured in the first place. If militant Muslims view the civilised manner in which we treat Gitmo residents they may continue their barbarism! How on Earth could we ever have conducted World War Two had the BBC behaved then as deplorably as it does now. It continually seeks to undermine our war efforts against Islamic terrorists and never fails to see things from the Jihadists’ point of view.


. If you want a laugh, I suggest you read these comments on the BBC “Have your Say” page concerning the imminent arrival of US President Bush to the UK tomorrow. I particularly enjoyed Muhammad (sic) Adam’s comment that “Bush is the world’s biggest terrorist and murderer. He should not be allowed into the UK. His presence in this pure land violates its sanctity. Bush has not done anything good for his nation, or for any nation for that matter ever since he took office. He should be arrested for crimes against humanity, for genocide, for international terrorism.” I think Muhammad may be articulating BBC policy on this topic as they prepare for a hurricane of protest at the Bush visit. I’ve been invited on the BBC Northern Ireland Nolan Show tomorrow morning as someone who supports the President’s record on te war on terror. Guantanamo is one area that I suspect will be tackled, with the likes of Shamnesty International’s street burlesque in orange jumpsuits through Belfast city centre being give considerable media time by the BBC. My only problem with Gitmo was that enemy combatants made it that far. A gulag of our times that allows inmates to put on weight is a gulag too far. I know the hard-left will be out in full-on moonbat mode tomorrow, whinging about all the imperfections of the US President without anything substantial to say about the Islamic pathology that brought us 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali to name but a few. Bush derangement syndrome will be evident in BBC new coverage over the next 48hrs and I will report back on my experience tomorrow.


. Do you think it possible that statistically speaking ALL of the in-mates at Guantanamo Bay are innocent little lambs? That is the line repeatedly peddled by the BBC and I listened and read the latest items concerning the squealing from “British” inmate Binyam Mohamed. Mohamed follows Al Queda training manual instructions and claims he was tortured. When he was captured by US forces, this cleaner from West London was travelling between Pakistan and Afghanistan, trying to resolve his .. ahem.. personal drug problems. As you do. His only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and now those pesky Yanks have gone and charged him with conspiring to commit terrorist offences in the US, including plotting to plant a so-called dirty bomb to spread radiation. Naturally the BBC immediately undermines this by stating that a previous AQ terrorist suspect in the shape of Jose Padilla got off when the same charges were made against him. It deliberately OMITS telling us that Padilla was convicted by a US jury of conspiring to fund Jihad and the killing of people overseas. More BBC deceptions folk, giving you half the story in order to try and convince you that poor doe-eyed Mohamed is innocent. It strikes me that the BBC just loves providing airtime to the parasitic left-wing lawyers for these Gitmo captives who can then use this bully pulpit to further blacken the reputation of the US military and Presidency. In the case of this illegal Ethiopian asylum seeker – now labelled as “British” as they come – the BBC is merely continuing its own war on the United States. Don’t you agree?


Amnesty International is one of those organised hypocrisies to which the BBC swears fealty and so when Secretary General Irene “Gulag of our times”Khan decides to grace the State Broadcaster with an interview, you know that she is going to get an easy time. And so it was this morning, with her 7.25am interview on Today. Ostensibly there to chastise “the world” for its failure to meet the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the conversation naturally turned to that great abuser of Human Rights – the United States and provided the fragrant Irene with an opportunity to once more call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. To add emphasis, the BBC illustrate these global human rights abuses on its news page with a picture of..Zimbabwe? NO. China? No? Iran? No? Guantanamo? YES. Come to think of it, seeing as how UN peacekeepers are quite keen to gang-rape kids in foreign lands, wonder why the BBC didn’t ask Irene how she felt about the UN not meeting the UN’s Human Rights obligations? Must have slipped their mind, I guess….


The Fi Glover hosted “Saturday Live” programme on BBC Radio 4 is a hoot. It’s insidious left-wing propagandising, wrapped up in the thin veneer of magazine style culture, cuts no ice here. Take the item ran this morning on the Turk Murat Kurnaz, held for 5 years in Guantanamo Bay. He alleges that he was tortured & maltreated during that time by those bad Americans, naturally. Fi seemed a tad coy enquiring into the background on this allegedly “Innocent man in Guantanamo” – with a book deal to plug around the world. For example, she repeated the nonsense that he is a German man of Turkish origin. Wrong. He is a Turk with an expired German residence. Kurnaz felt moved to travel to Pakistan in the autumn of 2001, (Mm, wonder what the motivating event was that inspired this pilgrimage?) in order to devote time to his religious faith and expand his knowledge about Islam by visiting religious schools. Yes, I bet! Just like so many others who ended up in Gitmo he was afflicted by the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time – and he repeated his assertion that about 95% of the inmates at Gitmo are as equally innocent as him. I agree, I am sure they are, if you know what I mean. This goon is parroting the BBC narrative that Guantanamo is a great evil and that all in-mates are god-fearing innocent men – just like Kurnaz. I’m looking forward to Fi invited me on to help me plug my new book! That should happen just after hell freezes over.


I caught the BBC Radio 4 News headlines at 6.30am this morning and noticed that the “Save The Guantanamo Six” campaign has now kicked off, following the news that the US intends to try six men, including alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with plotting the events that led to the mass terror attack on 9/11. The BBC are foaming at the mouth about this story because it combines several of their innate leftist prejudices. The Bush regime (bad) is going to take Guantanamo inmates (innocent, in the wrong place at the wrong time) to a military commission (always bad) and if they are convictedthey could face – gasp – the death penalty (double bad) The first comment came from the UN Rapportuer on torture Manfred Nowak(Remember, Gitmo bad) who was given free reign to imply that the poor Jihadi might not get a fair trial. Indeed I was entertained to hear the BBC reporter explain that he had “broken the news” to Manfred (who was on a ski-ing holiday, natch) that the Gitmo inmates could now face the death penalty. How interesting that the BBC thinks that the first person to speak to after this breaking news is a representative of the morally bankrupt UN which has consistently opposed the war on terror. Here’s a hint for the BBC – why not get in contact with those who lost loved ones on 9/11 and who crave that justice be done? The BBC has been a constant echo-chamber for the anti-war lobby who knee-jerk that Guantanamo be closed and that if there is evidence against those interned there, then bring them to trial. Now that the US is doing just that, they are even more upset because it’s the wrong sort of trial and as all good Beeboids know, there is no justice in the USA, right? (OJ apart) I look forward to the trial and conviction of these alleged Jihadi and hope that they will made their fate – and the death penalty seems about right to me. The world is divided into September 10th and September 11th people – the BBC remains resolutely stuck in September 10th 2001.