Category Archives: PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS.

Mark Mardell’s Crisis of Faith Continues

By | | , , , , ,
21 Comments

BBC North America editor Mark Mardell is in a dark place these days. After his beloved Obamessiah turned out to be a cold-blooded assassin, he doesn’t know which way to turn. He’s tried blaming ugly United Statesians for forcing the President to kill because it plays well at home, refusing to call out the President Himself. Mardell never made much of a fuss about the fact that the current President has sent unmanned drones to kill far more people in Pakistan than the previous White House occupant did, so it’s not surprising that this particular targeted assassination has shaken his faith so badly. To their credit, the BBC has reported this elsewhere, but it’s remarkable that Mardell doesn’t seem to make the connection.

In his latest post, Mardell misrepresents reality to sing His praises for one last time.

From the very start of his presidency, Mr Obama’s administration has made it clear there is no such thing as an Afghan strategy. First it was an Af-Pak strategy. Then it became Pak-Af. Whatever you call it, there is an acknowledgement that Pakistan may be the more important country in the fight against al-Qaeda. Everyone in the know believes some members of the government and particularly the intelligence service are hand-in-glove with the jihadists and must have known what Bin Laden was up to.

This implies that Bush’s focus on Afghanistan was wrong and that he somehow neglected Pakistan. In fact, the only reason Al Qaeda had such a presence in Pakistan was because they had been largely forced out of Afghanistan by Coalition forces during the last several years of fighting. Even the BBC has admitted that in the past. Yet Mardell wants you to think that only The Obamessiah understood that Pakistan was a problem. Why would Bush have been sending drone attacks into the tribal areas if he didn’t also have an Af-Pak strategy of some kind?

In any case, Mardell’s crisis of faith continues. In fact, it’s getting so bad now that I think I’m nearly ready to stop with this “Obamessiah” business because I think Mardell and his colleagues are nearly done with their blind worship of Him. Mardell himself reveals why.

After talking about the problem of squaring the huge amount of cash and support we give to Pakistan with the fact that there’s clearly a major faction (at least) there who are in league with the enemy, he says this:

While this debate will go on, the Mr Obama doesn’t have to worry about some of the concerns expressed in the rest of the world about the legality or morality of killing Bin Laden. It has hardly been raised by anyone here in the US, and the president has said that anyone who questions taking the al-Qaeda leader out “needs their heads examined”.

Mardell questioned it and denegrated the US public over it in his last post, so this means that the President is actually saying that he, too, needs his head examined. The BBC North America editor must be questioning his faith now. What to do? We’ll see how he handles it.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Victory Lap or Somber Occasion? Whatever the White House Says It Is.

By | | , ,
8 Comments

Not a single voice allowed on the BBC today to criticize. Every single Beeboid on air is saying how wonderful this is, and how this is “paying respect” to the families and is absolutely not a victory lap or moment of opportunism. Of course, they don’t know what He thinks, or what this really is, but they are telling you nevertheless. All US vox pops are positive, enthusiastic, supportive.

The BBC is also helping to spin the White House talking point that Bush forgot about Bin Laden and it was only the current President who cared. There is still no mention on the BBC of the fact that the name of the courier was obtained during the Bush Administration, and that Sunday’s event was the culmination of years of work. Mustn’t harm the Narrative.

No sneering at the President telling firemen in NYC that He’s “got your back” in front of the whole press corps, something that ought really to have been a private occasion. In fact, this, as Huw Edwards told us twice now, is “the defining moment of His Presidency”. He spoke to Eleanor Clift, but forgot to mention that she’s a die-hard Democrat and supporter of the President.

Where are the critical voices? Surely there must be someone in the country who thinks this is unseemly? Or someone who might think it’s odd that He never visited Ground Zero as President before but runs down there now? You won’t hear any editorializing or sneering today from the Beeboids. Not even from Matt Frei, who has his best serious journalist face on. today. Only respect for the White House agenda from the BBC.

An impartial broadcaster should not be telling you what His motives are, or whether or not this actually is the right thing to do. They should be telling you what’s happening, and what various opinionmongers think it means. The Beeboids themselves should not be telling you what to think about it. Yet they do.

Note to Matt Frei: Today’s visit wasn’t supposed to be about Him, right? It’s supposed to be about the victims, their families, healing, and possibly some closure for the country’s psyche. Except you and your colleagues are making it all about Him even while you pretend you’re not.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Mark Mardell’s Crisis of Faith

By | | , , , , , ,
9 Comments

The President ordered Osama Bin Laden killed without trial, without due process of law, and the BBC North America editor is crestfallen. Mardell really doesn’t know what to do. He has his own opinions, his own moral code to follow, yet cannot bring himself to actually blame the President for it. Instead, he works to shift blame onto the ugly United Statesians he’s found distasteful for so long.

On the scene in New York, Mardell explains what the President will be doing, and why. Well, actually, no he doesn’t. He mostly quotes the White House spokesman, who is the husband of Katty Kay’s personal friend and business partner. Mardell also quotes the President and mentions what Sarah Palin said as well. Why the British public should give a damn about what Sarah Palin says instead of an actual politician or even Presidential candidate is a mystery to me, but we know that the BBC cares very, very deeply.

When the President lays that wreath this evening, I hope he’s a bit more considerate than He was when He casually tossed a rose on the pile in 2008. His lack of consideration and sympathy was evident then. Funny how He never visited Ground Zero on the actual anniversary in 2009 or 2010, but is coming to do it now? If this had been George Bush, the BBC would be screaming about how it’s a victory lap. Instead, they’re full of respect and telling you exactly what the White House wants you to think.

But Mardell revealed his true feelings about the whole sorry affair on his blog yesterday. All impartial journalism goes out the window now. This is Mardell’s personal opinion, and shows how crushed he is that his beloved Obamessiah has ordered someone killed without trial. Of course, I don’t expect Mardell to actually criticize the President or His management skills for all the screwed up facts they spewed out after the event. Fog of war and all that, I’m sure. Nothing to do with amateurs running the show.

In any case, here’s Mardell’s own opinion:

The president’s press secretary Jay Carney suggested this was the result of trying to provide a great deal of information in a great deal of haste.

I can largely accept that. There is no mileage in misleading people and then correcting yourself. But the president’s assistant national security advisor John Brennan had used the facts he was giving out to add a moral message – this was the sort of man Bin Laden was, cowering behind his wife, using her as a shield. Nice narrative. Not true. In fact, according to Carney this unarmed woman tried to attack the heavily armed Navy Seal. In another circumstance that might even be described as brave.

Well, sure, but what’s the point of saying such a thing about bravery, if not to direct the audience in a certain direction? Just state the facts and let the audience decide. No need for editorializing like this.

For those involved an operation like this, time must go past in a confused and noisy instant, and they aren’t taking notes. Confusion is very understandable. But you start to wonder how much the facts are being massaged now, to gloss over the less appealing parts of the operation.

Oh, dear. Mardell is starting to question his undying trust of the President? We’ll see in a moment.

And of course there is the suspicion that the US never wanted to take Bin Laden alive. Here at least many see a trial as inconvenient, awkward – a chance for terrorists to grandstand. Look at all the fuss about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The bit I’ve put in bold is where Mardell begins to shift blame. It’s extremely wrong to say that people see the trials as “inconvenient”. It’s just that many politicians don’t want the circus in their home towns, and – more importantly – there are legal ramifications of having a civilian criminal case, which may harm the outcome. I don’t expect the BBC to tell you that, though, because they don’t agree with it.

In the confusion of a raid it’s hard to see how the Seals could be sure that Bin Laden wasn’t armed, didn’t have his finger on the trigger of a bomb, wasn’t about to pull a nasty surprise. If he had his hands in the air shouting “don’t shoot” he might have lived, but anything short of that seems to have ensured his death.

Now Mardell is the one doing the backtracking. He’s just said that he is doubtful about the whole thing, but now allows it’s “hard to be sure”, etc. Then he places the blame for this squarely where he believes it to be:

I suspect there will be more worry about this in Britain and Europe than in the US. That doesn’t mean we are right or wrong. It is a cultural difference. We are less comfortable about frontier justice, less forgiving about even police shooting people who turn out to be unarmed, perhaps less inculcated with the Dirty Harry message that arresting villains is for wimps, and real justice grows from the barrel of a gun. Many in America won’t be in the slightest bit bothered that a mass murderer got what was coming to him swiftly, whether he was trying to kill anyone in that instant or not.

And there we have the anti-American bias of the BBC’s North America editor, the man the BBC says you are supposed to trust to help you understand the US. Mardell’s weak gesture towards cultural relativism is lost when he uses derogatory terms like “frontier justice”, and implies that we in the US don’t care as much when the police shoot unarmed people (slander), “Dirty Harry message”, and that hoary old chestnut, “real justice grows from the barrel of a gun”.

This is Mark Mardell telling you his personal opinion of what he perceives to be the mentality of the US. It’s not reporting, it’s not impartial, it’s not anything other than the BBC telling you that we are inferior. Worse, this is also Mardell’s way of telling you that the cold-blooded killing without due process of law is not the President’s fault. No, He was forced to do this by the ugly US public, because that’s what we want. Is this really the purpose of BBC editors’ blogs, to spout personal opinion and venom?

In all of Mardell’s reporting, and indeed in all of the BBC’s coverage of the event, there is no criticism at all of the President Himself. All blame is placed elsewhere, and in fact the President is portrayed as the only adult in the room, above it all. Jeremy Paxman said on Newsnight that the White House “dithered”, but I think he got away with it. Otherwise, Mardell has previously made very effort to tell you that the President considers every issue nearly as carefully as Deep Thought took to work out the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

So in the end, Mardell has to find someone else to blame when the President does something he doesn’t like. Sad, really, and the public is led away from the facts and into opinion.

Side note: The BBC is still leaving the door ajar for Truther conspiracy theories with this line:

Bin Laden was believed to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and many others.

Have they learned nothing? He confessed on video which has been broadcast by the BBC, wrote about it, talked about it. It’s a fact that Bin Laden was behind it, not supposition.

As the President does His victory lap at Ground Zero today, the BBC is giving full coverage. And by “coverage”, I mean covering for Him. Barbara Plett is on the scene on the News Channel this morning telling us what will happen.

He’s “paying homage”, and “showing respect” to the families of the victims. Nobody wants to accuse the President of making this a political event, Plett assures us. The BBC has the White House talking points from Jay Carney, and they are dutifully following it.

“He wants to meet with them and share with them this important and significant moment, a bitter-sweet moment, I think, for many families of the victims,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Well, He’s meeting with some families, anyway. Some haven’t been invited, and one family at least has declined to give Him the photo op. But what’s a little white lie amongst friends, eh? As long as they’re reporting White House talking points, they’re doing their job. He’s not using this for political purposes, no, no, no. Some people may think that, the Beeboids allow, but that’s not what He’s about. Heavens no. Even today’s coverage on the News Channel says the same thing.

Isn’t this visit to Ground Zero a bit sudden, not planned until just now to take advantage of the event, asks the newsreader in the studio? Oh, no, says Plett, stammering as she’s caught off guard. He’s just paying respects to the families now. Pro Obama at all costs, indeed.

The BBC continues to be the foreign branch of the White House press office, but He’s made it very difficult for them this week!

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

BBC Censorship: Spot The Missing President Edition

By | | , , , , ,
7 Comments

One today’s ‘B’ stories is about all the Gulf Coast fisherman complaining that BP isn’t dealing fairly with them, isn’t paying enough compensation, won’t let them into meetings for a negotiation. Nasty old BP, oil destroys communities, etc. There’s also a round of Spot The Missing Word.

The News Channel just let a Louisiana oysterman have a three-minute rant about how evil BP is. Beeboid Emma let him go on uninterrupted, and only after he was finished did she close with one sentence about how BP created a $20 billion fund for this.
Did you spot the missing word?

The Obamessiah made this deal with BP behind closed doors. There is no room for the fishermen to negotiate, or increase the money of the fund, or anything else. Unsurprisingly, He was the top recipient of campaign cash from BP.

The BBC doesn’t want you to know any of that, and has censored all mention of His involvement from all reports today about this issue.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Compare and Contrast: BBC Obamessiah/Libya Edition

By | | , , ,
15 Comments

Compare this report from Fox News:

U.S. Launches Cruise Missiles Against Qaddafi’s Air Defenses

The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader’s Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses Saturday, a military source tells Fox News.

The U.S. military strikes clear the way for European and other planes to enforce a no-fly zone designed to ground Qaddafi’s air force and cripple his ability to inflict further violence on rebels, U.S. officials said.

Sounds like the US fired first right? But skip a paragraph about Hillary Clinton attending some meeting about this and we get this:

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive military operations, said the Obama administration intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions.

French fighter jets fired the first shots at Qaddafi’s troops on Saturday, launching the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war in support of an uprising that had seemed on the verge of defeat. The French military says warplanes have carried out four air strikes, destroying several armored vehicles of pro-Qaddafi forces, according to AFP.

So those damn Froggy warmongers (always spoiling for a fight, right?) drew first blood, and the US was close behind. What a difference from when Chirac wouldn’t even let us fly over French airspace to go after Sadaam.

In any case, contrast it with this report from the BBC:

French military jet opens fire in Libya

A French plane has fired the first shots in Libya as enforcement of the UN-mandated no-fly zone begins.

The UK prime minister later confirmed British planes were also in action, while US media reports said the US had fired its first Cruise missiles.

So who took the first shot? The stringent US media says – natch – the US fired first. Of course, they would say that, as Mark Mardell’s reporting would give us the idea that only all those foolish United Statesian warmongers obsessed with the notion of American decline would demand it. Unapologetically leading the charge and all that, yeah.

In any case, I can’t recall any criticism aired by the BBC from French anti-war voices. Is it not ill-advised when the French do it? Was there a segment with their equivalent of Caroline Lucas saying, “Pas de guerre pour l’oeil“?

After a few paragraphs about how the French are going over with no fewer than 20 aircraft, guns blazing, the BBC allows this:

Other air forces and navies are expected to join the French.

“Other air forces”. As if we couldn’t guess immediately which other ones are involved, and it’s not so important who they are. Except of course it’s vitally important for the BBC Narrative who they are.

The US would use its “unique capabilities” to reinforce the no-fly zone, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, warning that further delays would put more civilians at risk. However, Mrs Clinton said again that the US would not deploy ground troops in Libya.

The BBC News Online editors are just playing games here.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday that nobody was going to occupy anybody, essentially no troops on the ground, full stop, occupation is “not going to happen”. It was aired at least twice on the News Channel yesterday. No mention of that at all here, even though it’s more relevant to the license fee payer who might be concerned about, you know, their own government. But the BBC’s focus is exclusively on protecting the US President here. He’s not George Bush, dammit.

Fox News, naturally, is focused on the US angle, and how the US is leading the way. On one level, this would seem to please those whom Mardell describes as being “obsessed” with the notion of American decline. The US is actually – laudably, to hear the BBC tell it – taking a back seat. Or, as Mardell would have it, “leading from behind”. This is obviously a definition of “leading” of which I wasn’t previously aware.

So, if the hated Fox News is clearly reporting from a pro-US, right-wing bias, a news organization which reports from the exact opposite perspective – not just different, but opposite, mind – must by definition be Left wing. I’m not talking about which report one agrees with: I’m talking about the angles and perspectives involved.

All of the BBC’s reporting from now on for this war for oil….no, sorry, UN-backed war for human rights, is slanted toward this angle. Just remember the Narrative that the US taking a back seat and following along is considered “leading from behind”. No problem, no bias, right, BBC?

UPDATE: While the Secretary of State is in Paris leading the US operations in Libya, the President Himself is sucking up to Brazil and waving at us from afar. Leading from behind, indeed. I assume Mark Mardell approves whole-heartedly, as he says that US decline is a doddle.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Hillary Clinton Proves Mark Mardell Wrong

By | | , , , , , ,
29 Comments

Hillary Clinton told CNN the other day that she won’t be working for the President if there is a second term in 2012. Not just that she doesn’t want to be Sec. of State again, but wants no position at all in His Administration.

She told Wolf Blitzer that she doesn’t want to be Sec. of State again because she has the best job in the world right now.

Because I have the best job I could ever have. This is a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath. There are both the tragedies and disasters that we have seen from Haiti to Japan and there are the extraordinary opportunities and challenges that we see right here in Egypt and in the rest of the region. So I want to be part of helping to represent the United States at this critical moment in time, to do everything I can in support of the president and our government and the people of our country to stand for our values and our ideals, to stand up for our security, which has to remain first and foremost in my mind and to advance America’s interests. And there isn’t anything that I can imagine doing after this that would be as demanding, as challenging or rewarding.

Er, and it wouldn’t be in a second term? That doesn’t add up. So why is she going to walk away after next year? No prizes for guessing what her staff is saying:

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Hang on, Mark Mardell has been telling us that The Obamessiah has been thoughtfully “deliberating”. So will he now claim that Hillary Clinton is wrong to think He’s been dithering because she’s “unfamiliar” with the concept? Or does she know better than the BBC North America editor because she’s, you know, on the inside actually dealing with reality and not making uninformed judgments from on high with a perfumed handkerchief held to the nose?

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

Waffling? I guess she just can’t grasp the nuance of His finely tuned brain. What will the BBC have to say about this? Or this:

Bill Clinton: We shouldn’t be letting the Libyan protesters “twist in the wind”

Will Mardell now dismiss the former two-term Democrat President of the United States and the current Democrat Secretary of State as people who are “obsessed with the notion of American decline” or gung-ho cowboys who want an “unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead”?

Clinton’s announcement was not only on CNN but also mentioned on the HuffingtonPost, so we know the Beeboids are aware of it, and can’t pretend it’s not an important enough story for them to mention. So far, though, they’ve censored this news.

In sum, Hillary Clinton just proved that the BBC North America editor’s interpretation of US news has been completely wrong. Why trust him ever again?

UPDATE: Mardell is at it again! This time he’s giving us the spin on the President’s speech about Libya. See the comments thread for more.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Mardell and the President and Libya Continued

By | | , , , , , ,
5 Comments

No sooner had I posted my complaints about Mark Mardell’s continued, slavish defense of the President and use of the BBC website to set forth his own personal opinions on foreign policy, the BBC’s North America editor put up another post on the matter. Actually he’s done two posts, but I’ll get to the second one in a minute.

The Enigma Variations

As if in rebuttal to my post, Mardell tells us that the President is, in fact, telling a couple Mohammedan leaders to get with the program and back the use of military force against Ghaddafi. Why we never heard about this before is unknown. Not only that, but apparently the reason the US hasn’t been leading the call for a no-fly zone in the first place is not because the President can’t make a decision or simply doesn’t want to do it, but because the US military and Sec. of Defense are against the whole idea. It’s still not His fault.

Now, it’s not exactly a shock that the top brass really don’t want to get involved in this, for a variety of valid reasons which we need not get into here. But Mardell’s whole defense here is based on the idea that the only way a no-fly zone could possibly happen is if the US sends in massive amounts of military force, distracting from Iraq and Afghanistan, that we’ll get bogged down in a country which is not a major priority, and that nobody wants this to look like yet more Western imperialism.

Firstly, while it may be the conventional wisdom that only the US has the military might to do anything worthwhile, who says that’s how it has to be? If The Obamessiah is, as Mardell constantly reminds us, against the childish concept of military invention, why isn’t He doing something else to put pressure on Ghaddafi? Where is His speech to the UN about sanctions? Where is His diplomatic pressure on China and Russia to help out? Oh, that’s right, both countries had their way with Him last time He tried to negotiate anything with them (There you go again, still obsessed with the notion of America’s decline – ed.).

Surely a great humanitarian who, as Mardell told us, feels an emotional attachment with the Libyans’ quest for freedom, and was dead set against using military force, would be working night and day on alternative solutions. Yet we see….what? Scowling? Thoughtfulness? I mean, I’m not even one of those demanding an “unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead”. I’m just asking for the President to do what Mardell said He wanted to do: be on the right side of history. I could care less about military intervention per se. If there are other alternatives, it’s fine by me, and would, I suspect, be fine with most of my fellow United Statesians who are looking for our President to act like a world leader when called upon.

And that’s the key element missing in all of Mardell’s blogposts and reporting about the President and this situation: the people of Libya are asking for help. Unless we’re getting yet another vox pops from Benghazi or something like that, the BBC’s reporting makes it seem as if the only people calling for intervention are ill-advised or foolish warmongers. As Ghaddafi gets closer and closer to shutting down the rebellion and continues to slaughter his own people, it’s looking less and less moral to sit back and watch it happen.

What’s really wrong with the perspective from which Mardell and the BBC report is the Narrative that the President has sat on His hands because He doesn’t want it to seem like US imperialism, forcing dumb ol’ democracy on people who are culturally opposed to who don’t necessarily want it right now. What about all those Libyans we keep hearing asking for help? How would we be imposing a nasty foreign idea on people who are telling everyone who will listen that this is what they want? If that’s what the President and His Administration think, then I say they’re pretty misguided and missing the point. Mardell seems uninterested in considering this either way, as he’s stuck in ideologue mode.

Bahrain may be more strategically important in one sense, but Libya is the poster child everyone’s looking at right now, including the Bahrain leaders. Ghaddafi chose not to follow Mubarak’s laudable example, and should face the consequences, and the leaders of Bahrain would get a clear choice of options if he does. It’s not a difficult concept.

But none of this is seriously addressed by the BBC. Most of the talking heads they have on have been advocating against a no-fly zone. Sure, they’re full of admonitions about the practicality of it, and sounding very sober, yet the discussion has been mostly one-sided. And I don’t even mean we need to hear more from people calling for the bombs to start falling. Where is the discussion of alternatives to a US/UK bombing run? If there isn’t one, do we ever get to blame the world leader who was supposed to be The One to make the US a world leader of morality?

Now for the second post.

To Mardell’s horror, the US has now given its blessing to a UN-backed military action against Libya. Continuing his adamant advice against it, Mardell gets it wrong about how things work:

Now the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, has said that the resolution which is being discussed may need to go beyond this proposal, adding that no-fly zones have “inherent limitations” in protecting citizens at immediate risk.

She said the UN Security Council is focused on swift and meaningful action to halt the killing on the ground. We’re told that is diplomatic speak for airstrikes and bombardment from the sea. Sending in troops has been ruled out.

Sounds like a bombing run to me. In order to create a no-fly zone, one must first bomb the crap out of the enemies air defenses. Now here’s where Mardell gets it wrong:

She has a point. Most in the US top brass are scornful about the idea of a no-fly zone. The US flew more than 30 sorties a day over Iraq and it didn’t bring down Saddam Hussein.

Except the no-fly zone wasn’t meant to oust him. It was meant to stop him from slaughtering the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, and loads of other people he didn’t like, and invading other countries again. And it worked. I can sense reality quietly slipping away here.

No-fly zones would have been no good against the awful massacres of Rwanda and Srebrenica.

What does this have to do with anything? Nobody was calling for a no-fly zone then. Different deal entirely, required troops on the ground, and nobody wanted to do anything because it was an “African problem”, to be solved only by Africans. Same with Zimbabwe, in case Mardell is thinking of bringing that up next time he’s advocating against military action. Or Darfur, for that matter.

And Srebrenica? Is he joking? What does he think stopped the massacres in the Balkans of getting even worse? A BBC charity telethon? Even Matt Frei understands what happened there, and how it relates to Libya.

Then Mardell repeats his standard line of defense:

There’s been serious debate inside President Obama’s administration about the wisdom of using military force at all.

There’s an aversion to getting involved in another war with another Muslim country, or giving the impression that democracy is a Western plot. Libya is seen as a distraction, not a core US interest.

Again we get the blame spread around, and again Mardell puts forth the lie that this is going to look like US imperialism. Again we’re asked to pretend that George Bush was wrong and nobody in the Arab and/or Muslim world really wants democracy. Again we’re asked to sweep all those cries for help under the rug. Again we’re supposed to pretend that Britain and France and a few other countries couldn’t do a nicely symbolic move with only auxiliary support from the US. All to maintain ideological purity.

Also, I love how it’s acceptable again for the US to let dictators slaughter their own people where it’s not a core US interest. It’s not selfish or parochial at all now that Bush isn’t in charge. What happened to the criticisms of US hypocrisy because we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan but won’t do it in other cases?

Sometimes leadership doesn’t look pretty, or look like a choreographed TV speech. Sometimes it requires compromise and cooperation. Sometimes leadership requires actually leading. But it never looks like taking a back seat and hoping somebody else steps up, no matter how Mardell wants to spin it.

There is still no discussion from Mardell or anyone from the BBC about why, if the President doesn’t want the US military to go in there, He hasn’t been working night and day to get every other Muslim country to put real pressure on Ghaddafi. If the US has no useful influence in the region now, what was the point of all that bowing and scraping when the President was doing His first meet-and-greet sessions? What happened to the world leader whom the BBC told us was going to redeem the US in the eyes of the world? This is His chance to make the US look good, but since He’s ideologically opposed to it, it’s making Him – and the country – look not so good. Again, I’m not talking exclusively about a bombing run. There are many other options which would put pressure on Ghaddafi and be just as positively symbolic. A naval blockade, neighboring countries other than Egypt putting serious troops on the borders, shutting down his bank accounts, just to name a few. There are many ways the President can lead and make the US look good without blowing anything up.

But that’s not happening. Not because the President is so deliberate or thoughtful, not because His Administration wants to “base decisions on facts” (a sly dig at Bush there), and not for any other reason Mardell wants to push on you. It’s because of poor leadership, and an ideological opposition to having the US take a strong position on the world stage. We knew that during the election in 2008, and we’re seeing the fruits of it now. The BBC continues to dismiss that notion, and spin the story every other way possible.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Mark Mardell Continues to Defend the President

By | | , , , , ,
12 Comments

Mark Mardell is still desperately supporting the US President about His behavior regarding Libya. The President still hasn’t made a decision, is in fact hoping the problem is solved for Him, and Mardell is faithfully defending Him.

After explaining how others want action (the Chinese and Russians “have questions”, and Mardell leaves it at that so he doesn’t have to speak a truth which might harm his agenda), he dutifully reports the words of Katty Kay’s personal friend and husband of her business parter, White House spokesman Jay Carney:

“Our position is that action like that should be considered and taken if decided upon in co-ordination with our international partners, because it’s very important in the way that we respond to a situation like we see in Libya, that it be international and not unilateral; that it include the support and participation, for example, of the Arab League and other organisations and countries in the region… precisely so that it is not viewed by those who oppose positive democratic reform as the dictate of the West or the United States.”

Translation: I’m not gonna try it – you try it. Oh, and He’s not George Bush.

Mardell makes the obvious point (granted, part of his job) that sitting on His hands looks bad back home. Then he makes his personal opinion very clear:

It may be grown up, it may be sensible in the long run, but it is so unfamiliar that to many it will look like dithering, not deliberation.

“Grown up” is an editorial appraisal of policy. Of course, by making it epistemic, he probably gets through a loophole in the BBC style guide. But this is so obviously where he stands, especially framed in the context of his other blog posts and reports on the subject in which he comes from the same perspective. Mardell also spells out the correct interpretation for you: it’s “deliberation”, and anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn’t get it.

Why isn’t Mardell asking whether or not the Administration is pressing the Arab League to get off their asses? If, as is alleged here, He would “dearly love” for them to lead the attack on Ghaddafi, surely we’d hear about how much He’s working towards that goal? And wouldn’t Mardell be reminding us of that here, just to support his case that his beloved Obamessiah is actually showing leadership and the fools just don’t see it? If not, one would be forgiven for suspecting that maybe He doesn’t want it to happen at all, or simply has no opinion, and is just waiting for others to do it for Him. Mardell seems uninterested in addressing this obvious point.

Then Mardell spins this against the public and in support of the President:

In a country where some are obsessed with the notion of America’s decline, it will confirm some people’s worst fears.

“Obsessed” is an editorial choice which suggests an excessive, inappropriate, possibly unhealthy attitude. A more accurate and less biased term would be “concerned”. I’d even accept modifying it with “very” or “seriously”, or possibly “overly”, if I’m feeling really generous.

Furthermore, this ignores the argument about the President actually not wanting the US to have such a strong position in the world. In fact, Mardell has been spinning this whole thing away from the idea that it’s, you know, normal for people to want their country to be in the best possible position for economic and security issues. Who wants their country diminished? Why is that considered “grown up”? How maintaining this strong position is achieved (or how one even defines it, I suppose) is of course a topic for another discussion entirely. Here I’m concerned with the idea that people naturally want their country to have the best position possible, and that it’s not right to define this as a being somehow unnatural or incorrect behavior.

The main idea of my last post was that there is a valid reason to be concerned about the President actively wishing to reduce the US’s standing on the world stage. It may be out of a far-Left desire to stop being individuals and let the committee decide what to do, or it might simply be out of a lack of interest and deep understanding of world affairs, and just how much foreign policy can sometimes affect the domestic scene. Either way, it’s a legitimate debate to be had, especially the way He spoke during the election and just how much the BBC and Leftoid media kept telling us that this was pretty much what He was going to do if elected.

Mardell lets the White House get in the last word again, even making sure to tell us that criticism is so bad and unfair that the White House has had to “push back”.

In all, it’s another White House propaganda piece, with personal opinion thrown in, from the BBC’s North America editor.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

The Post-American President and the BBC

By | | , , , , ,
16 Comments

The President of the United States let slip a little revelation about Himself last week. I’ve been waiting for the BBC to say something, but there has been silence even on Twitter. Last Thursday, the New York Times published this:

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

The context for this was the President’s unhappiness with how tough being President of the US is these days, with everyone looking to Him for leadership on what to do about Libya, Bahrain, and all the other Mohammedan countries where the citizenry is protesting against their autocratic rulers. Not to mention (and the Times doesn’t, because they are trying to protect Him just as much as the BBC does) the difficulties He’s facing at home right now regarding the economy, Wisconsin and the unions, the Tea Party movement, etc.

Now, imagine for a moment if George W. Bush had said something about wishing he was an autocratic ruler who had the power to control the media and have opponents arrested and disappeared on a whim. The BBC would be all over it, and their North America editor would be writing scornful blogpost after scornful blogpost, to go with a couple of segments for Today.

The fact that they haven’t done this means that the Beeboids simply don’t see this as remarkable at all. Not only do they sympathize with Him, but Matt Frei actually once openly wished for Him to be an autocratic ruler as well.

Matt Frei: Sometimes you look at countries like China and you think, ‘Wouldn’t it be nice to be an autocracy in times like these?’

As DB said at the time, Matt Frei was heady with enthusiasm over the limitless possibilities for Change�™ at the dawn of The Obamessianic Age. The Beeboids certainly weren’t so enthusiastic for autocratic rule in the US back when Bush was elected. Have a look at their First 100 Days recap from 2001. It’s relentlessly negative. After reading that, get out the sick bag and remind yourselves of what the BBC put together for their beloved Obamessiah. Celebration after celebration.

Actually, I see something far worse in that quote. It reveals something about Him I was talking about here recently (pg. 8 on the Open Thread): He just isn’t interested in the US having a real leadership position in the world.

Right now, what many see as a lack of leadership and will over Libya is defended by Mark Mardell as pragmatism and a sign of His method of creating a better relationship between the US and the rest of the world. If we end up doing nothing and Ghaddafi kills more of his own people and ends up staying in power, Mardell accepts it willingly, because it would be His will.

The Obama administration is using the crisis as a test case. The key is whether the Arab world, the Muslim world will “cowboy up” and back some action. Although Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have been crystal clear that UN backing is need, an invitation from the Arab League, or a coalition of Arab nations, to take action might tip the balance, as would an attention-grabbing massacre on the ground: at the UN there talk is of a “Guernica moment”.

If neither happens, Mr Obama may simply accept that an autocrat he has called on to go, is going nowhere.

In other words, sitting back and waiting for someone else to lead the way is not a sign of weakness or inability or – my personal opinion – lack of caring. Ironically, Mardell makes sure to tell everyone – again reading the President’s heart and mind for us – that He feels some sort of emotional connection with the protesters getting killed. Not sure how he squares that one when looking at himself in the mirror every morning.

Just the day before, Mardell was talking to Sen. John Kerry, who was the only high-profile Democrat really calling for the US to go in and do something (as opposed to Government officials talking about considering options or whatever). Even then Mardell was trying to shift blame away from Him. Other countries aren’t going to do anything, so why should He? Even as he acknowledges in the later post the irony of so many people who used to be hyper-critical of US intervention are now crying for us to do something, Mardell doesn’t see anything worth remarking about the President’s handling of the situation. Everything is either someone else’s fault, or something where He gets it right no matter what.

The thing is, what just might be the most damning part about that quote is the fact that the reason that we really do have what so many people either feared or celebrated: the first Post-American President.

The Beeboids can work to defend Him all they want, but what we’re seeing here is someone whose personal agenda has very little to do with having a success foreign policy which will strengthen the US. The reason He notes that nobody in Tahrir Square (or Tobruk, for that matter) cares about what Hu Jintao says is because He knows that China isn’t where the world looks for leadership in times of crisis. Whether the BBC likes it or not, the US has that position. And He’s squandering it, while they defend Him.

When Bush was in charge, we heard all the time about how he had weakened the US’s stature, and then we heard about how The Obamessiah would restore us to our rightful place. Now that He’s not actually doing it, the BBC is shifting blame and pretending it’s not happening.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.

Katie Connolly Tells A Lie About Her Beloved Obamessiah

By | | , , , , , ,
43 Comments

Accompanying a news brief on the BBC website about Prime Minster Julia Gillard of Australia’s first trip to the US to meet with the President is an “analysis” inset from JournoList groupie Katie Connolly. She discusses the recent history of personal relationships (it seems like the Beeboids are much happier with this union of two leaders than when Bush was in charge, but never mind) between Australia and US leaders, and says this:

Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama – both cerebral centrists with a deep interest in world affairs – were said to have a strong personal rapport.

A centrist? This is a blatant, biased lie. Nobody honest can say that the President is or ever was a centrist. A reminder of Candidate Obamessiah:

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” (at 4:41 in)

These are not the words of a centrist. The same Candidate also told ACORN that the group would shape His agenda, This is not the behavior of a centrist.

A centrist candidate would not join in the SEIU chant and celebrate union power. That’s from the Left. The President’s very close ties to SEIU and union powerbrokers is not the behavior of a centrist. Unless we’re supposed to believe now that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are centrist?

Back when He was a State Senator in Illinois, He complained openly that the Supreme Court didn’t advocate wealth redistribution:

“Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor. But, I’m not optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.”

These are not the words of a centrist.

Anita Dunn, a top campaign adviser and White House Communications Director Anita Dunn stated openly that her favorite political philosophers were Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa. A centrist would never have such a far-Left ideologue in His inner circle.

As President, He hasn’t governed as a centrist. Far from it, in fact. Nationalized health care – “ObamaCare” – is not a centrist idea: it’s a Socialist concept. It may be mainstream in Britain and Europe, but it’s an idea of the Left.

His “cap-and-trade” policy of favoring corporations who engage in approved behavior is known as “corporatism”, which is a fixture of Socialist governing. The way the President has attacked Republicans for the past two years is not the behavior of a centrist.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that Katie Connolly has no credibility as an honest newsbroker. Don’t trust her, and don’t trust the BBC on US issues.

Click through to read and contribute comments on this post.