Well then, wonder what you thought of the BBC’s coverage of the Netanyahu speech to Congress? Betraying my own bias, I thought it was fantastic BUT I got the distinct impression that the BBC were outraged that the Israeli PM was daring to stand up to Obama’s dodgy dealings with the Mad Mullahs. A favoured line spewed out by Jeremy Bowen was that this was “electioneering” by Bibi. Gosh – just imagine that – a politician electioneering. Thank god we have principled politicians like Ed Miliband who never electioneer and ‘weaponise” healthcare, right? The rousing reception he got must really annoy the BBC.
THAT SPEECH…
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC has difficulty understanding the US political system. Remember the fuss when it discovered that voters didn’t directly elect the Prez and how Gore wuz robbed by hanging chads and a Miami republican. Didn’t they know about Nixon losing to JFK, or about the whole electoral college thingy? And this outrage coming from the state broadcaster of a country with a hereditary head of state, an unelected second chamber including bishops and FPTP voting was surely well received by our American friends.
Obama is not a king. His term will end soon. His powers are prescribed. Netanyahu got a standing ovation from the Congress. Draw your own conclusions about how Israel stands in the US.
It’s not just the US political system that the BBC has difficulty in understanding – it has a profound problem with any principled politician who stands up for his own beliefs and people, especially when they are to do with national survival. What is remarkable about Israel and not often appreciated is that, just like here, the country is riddled with self destructive liberals. The difference is that there are still enough people who understand the existential threat to them and are unwilling to just roll over and die.
I heard BBC coverage of it on R4 The World Tonight. Their report was patronising and very dismissive. It “explained” to us that Netanyahu went to the US and made the speech simply to raise his profile in the run up to the Israeli elections.
Phew! For a moment I was seriously worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and using them. Or about Iran giving nukes to Hamas, al-Qaeda or other proxy terror groups, to unleash a new level of jihad against the West, Jews, Christians etc.
I was worried that the BBC was appeasing Islamic extremism, much as the BBC appeased Hitler in the 1930s.
Having listened to the BBC I now realise there’s nothing to worry about. It was just some electioneering! Move along folks, nothing to see here.
‘Or about Iran giving nukes to Hamas, al-Qaeda or other proxy terror groups, to unleash a new level of jihad against the West, Jews, Christians etc.’
Precisely the reason we need to retain Trident, so if any city in Britain is ever held to Iran-sponsored nuclear ransom by some bunch of Islamo-fascists Iran knows there is a real and present danger it will get transported lock stock and kasbah, courtesy of several mushroom clouds, into the upper atmosphere.
“line spewed out by Jeremy Bowen was that this was “electioneering” by Bibi. Gosh – just imagine that – a politician electioneering. Thank god we have principled politicians like Ed Miliband who never electioneer and ‘weaponise” healthcare, right?”
so so true
How lucky the Palestinians are not to have to worry about elections 🙂
To be fair, even when they do have elections, they are not exactly spoiled for choice.
Many voted for Hamas in Gaza largely because they were fed up with Fatah mismanagement, war-mongering and corruption. It didn’t take long for Hamas to show its true colours and become even more oppressive than Fatah had been.
Beeboids (and their Obamessiah) seem more concerned for the Islamic Republic of Iran, than for Israel’s survival.
“How radical and extreme is Obama?”
http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/how-radical-and-extreme-is-obama.html/
There is no doubt that Netanyahu is a hawk rather than a dove, and his belligerent attitudes might well have made a situation worse than it might have been.
No doubt too that Obama is a very odd fish. After the ridiculous Saudi ordered US interventions of the Bush era the US has a kind of intervention fatigue, but Obama seems to have also been sponsored by the Saudis and is actively promoting the interests of Muslims around the world.
Makes me wonder when the US troops swear to protect the country from all enemies foreign & domestic, what would happen if one of them actually carried out his oath and arrested the President !
You must remember that to the BBC St Obama is the third coming.
If you missed the second coming, it was in 1997 when the arrival of St. Anthony was celebrated with champagne at the BBC.
The fawning on Obama and vitriol addressed to Palin by the BBC left me in no doubt that the first black President of the United States was going to resolve all world issues at a stroke, including closing Guantanamo.
The BBC haven’t got quite as far as shouting “Crucify him”, as they did with St. Anthony, but overall St. Obama must left many beeboids feeling disappointed. He was perhaps fortunate he got his Nobel prize sooner rather than later!
I’m sure I heard a comment from one of his staff say that Obama believes the problem is solved once he has made a speech about it. A bit like Labour announcing the throwing of other people’s money as the solution to all problems.
“The BBC haven’t got quite as far as shouting “Crucify him”, ”
I doubt they ever would. Because he’s, y’know, of a sort that gets a free pass, however egregious they are.
“Obama believes the problem is solved once he has made a speech about it.”
I seem to recall someone saying much the same about St Tony.
I thought the second coming was that of a bloke whose ex-wife liked putting Continental and Michelin necklaces on her victims.
Ah yes, Nissan Main Dealer.
I watched the entire speech live. It was electrifying. Standing ovation after standing ovation, with many cheering to the rafters.
The message was quite clear, appeasement only leads to disastrous consequences and Obama is the arch naïve fool, which we all know anyway. America’s foreign policy is in tatters, there is no leadership in the western world. Put aside the up front rhetoric and you’ll find that not one European leader would trust the White House clown as far as they could throw him. Certainly not the prime minister of the only democracy in the middle east.
So we have the son of a renowned scholar, whose own academic record at MIT and Harvard is there for all to see, and who went on to serve his country bravely in an elite special forces, the Sayeret Matkal, whose brother commanded, and died whilst leading one of the most daring commando raids ever. A man who fully understands the immense danger the world faces with a nuclear armed regime led by religious lunatics.
As opposed to a former drug taking community organiser who rose to power through the murky, corrupt world of Chicago politics and who was surrounded in his early years and later by far left malcontents, agitators and terrorists and whose academic records are shrouded in obfuscation as is his birth certificate, and not for the reasons most people think.
So what does the BBC give us. Well if you thought Bunter Lardell was bad, just look at the preposterous Jon Sopel.
I’ll give you just one line from his “analysis”
“We’ll come to the substance in a moment – but let’s just do the theatre”
And there you have the BBC in a nutshell. The removal of enforced funding for the BBC cannot come a moment too soon.
A simply outstanding comment TPO. I watched the recording of the whole speech on CSPAN – my goodness I wish we could have a leader who spoke on behalf of his nation like that here after May – no hope or chance of that of course.
Your reference to the differences in the origins of Barack and Bibi, reminded me of two photos (placed side by side) of them b taken when they were both young: one showed a smug, over-privileged youth holding what looks like a spliff; the other that of an earnest young man in the combat fatigues of his country’s armed forces. I’ll let you draw your own conclusion as to which one was which.
Actually there has been widespread support for “that speech” from the Arab world.
Yes, that’s right; from the muslim Arab world – because Sunni muslims fear a nuclear armed Iran as well.
The powerful editor-in-chief of Al Arabiya (English edition) Faisal J. Abbas, has written a column calling on Obama to take notes from Netanyahu on the extent of the Iranian threat.
Haven’t seen this angle on BBC, can’t think why not.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/03/03/arab-commentators-strongly-back-netanyahu-on-congress-speech-iran-nuclear-threat/”
Oops, sorry… correct link here;
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/03/03/arab-commentators-strongly-back-netanyahu-on-congress-speech-iran-nuclear-threat/
‘Haven’t seen this angle on BBC, can’t think why not’
Because the world’s most trusted media monopoly is more twisted than a corkscrew?
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/03/04/bbc-audiences-get-israeli-pms-congress-speech-through-the-bowen-filter-part-one/
‘in light of the fact that BBC editorial guidelines – including those on accuracy and impartiality – also apply to its staff’s Twitter accounts’
But as the BBC says of its own rules… ‘”guidelines, schmidelines…”
Got me thinking there, GW, might be worth picking up the old Waterman and penning a line to the BBC asking if they have ever had to discipline a member of staff for breaching said guidelines…
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/bbc
However, as you may gather reading others, the BBC also has a rather ‘variable’ approach to what information is, can or should be ‘free’.
It would seem unlikely that, given the BBC’s fondness for rules (OK, when it suits), some may not have stepped over the line and there were ‘consequences’. Or maybe not, as it seems the % of complaints that the BBC [cough] Trust upholds is an amazingly low % of total.
Should you prevail, do share.
I think our fishy correspondent is referring to this chap
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1170239/BBC-rebukes-Middle-East-correspondent-Jeremy-Bowen-anti-Israel-comments.html
Liberals loathe Netanyahu not only because he is Israeli but because he says true things. When he called for all Jews to leave a dying Europe and go to Israel he is effectively saying that the liberal state of Europe is a failure and doomed to end.
The liberals have devoted their lives to the project for their version of Europe and along comes somebody who says – you are finished and going nowhere and it is time for us Jews to leave you to rot.
Hard thing for a liberal to take. Hard for any of us but at least we conservatives recognise the truth.
Off topic but I am unable to leave a message in the Question Time chat thread.
– A corrective for INBBC and Bowen-
“VIDEO and transcript of Netanyahu’s Speech Before Congress”
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/running-transcript-of-netanyahus-speech-before-congress.html/#sthash.pswExBUq.dpuf
As I say elsewhere, I`m grateful to Pamela Geller for posting up Netenyahus speech above.
To actually watch it, listen to it?…well we`ve done the BBCs work for it.
For Today this moaning (7.50 etc) managed to find a liberal naysayer called Robin Nephew or such-Iranian adviser to the Democrats from Duke Uni.
He`d not have got THAT far up the liberal fool chain had he not held his odious take on Israel…and the BBC let him bluster falsehoods and canards unimpeded by anybody who actually HEARD what BIbi said.
Glad I heard it-made the choice of liberal soundbites, the “analysis” all the more obvious.
Chickenshits, the lot of `em.
As ever-back Israel, back Bibi and UKIP-and f*** the BBC, the lying tykes.
The source is all we need…and the world is safe as long as we back Israel against the liberals like Nephew and the political pondweed so beloved by the BBC.
Absolutely brilliant speech by Netanyahu. He summed up the real Middle East situation in Churchillian fashion.
Why can’t I imagine that our own HoC representatives could receive him in this way??
God Bless America.
They are our only hope (as soon as Hussein O bama goes).
Netanyahu may be right or wrong as he’s human, but of the US, Israel and Iran, only Israel faces the possibility of extermination if things go badly and so Netanyahu has a heavy responsibility and simply can’t afford to take a risk on the very survival of his nation and people.
Still it now looks like the Sunni / Shia war may be resuming in which case this becomes a side show.
And a bit of context from the BBC – like how the Arab nations have thrice waged all out war on Israel with the intent of ‘wiping it off the face of the map’ – might be helpful to viewers and listeners who are too young to remember.
Also Iranian intervention in Lebanon – including the US Marines’ bombing, Iranian support for Assad, Iranian support for Hamas, Iranian support for attacks on British troops in Iraq (those shaped charges) and Iranian troops now in Iraq fighting ISIS.
if only we had a leader like netanyahu running this country,if only,what a great man he is,but what about hussein obamas snub to him,well that says all about the democrats in america does it not, they are just a bunch of ignorant leftist appeasers of iran and all the other despot leaders in the middle east,some people say the worst president ever was jimmy the peanut head carter,i think hussein obama is getting very close to overtaking him as the worst president ever in the usa.
So many superb comments on this thread.
Nearly fell off my chair listening to World Have Your Say last night. They were fair in their coverage of Netanyahu’s speech, bringing in a Republican supporter and a Democrat critic to bat the issue back and forth for about 20 minutes.
Then I nearly fell off my chair again as I tried to find the link and post it here. The ‘editors’ have excised those 20 minutes from last night’s programme, leaving only the other half in, on ‘India’s daughter:’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/whys
I guess the poor dears just couldn’t bear to have some balanced comment on Netanyahu available to listen to for a week on their precious website.
Well, I know I didn’t dream it. I heard it on that old-fashioned thing with an aerial they call a radio.
Kevin Connolly’s snide little dig at Netanyahu, however, is still up on the Outside Source page, starting a bit after 5 minutes in:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02kq0hf
Here’s Connolly sneering at Netanyahu a few hours before the speech:
[Sound of Applause]
“From the sound of the applause you could have been forgiven for thinking the Beatles had reunited on stage…”
[Dumb analogy. The Beatles used to be confronted by screaming teenage girls whereas the applause for Netanyahu was simply enthusiastic with the occasional cheering.]
“…But this is actually Binyamin Netanyahu speaking to Congress a couple of years ago. He got 28 standing ovations in 47 minutes if you’re wondering. There was hardly time to sit down between them…Now not everyone in Washington is in love with Netanyahu of course. The White House certainly isn’t. When Atlantic Magazine listed the harsh words used in anonymous administration briefings about him: recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering and pompous were the principle ones….”
Of course those adjectives actually describe Connolly in particular and BBC hacks in general.
Outside Source was strangely quiet today about the Netanyahu speech. I guess the ‘editor’ figured Connolly’s juvenile pre-speech effort was adequate coverage of this important event.
The BBC has had a few fine journalists over the years, like Alistair Cooke. He must be turning in his grave at the current miserable lot.
https:/www.vdare.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/soldierversusdoper.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2979871/Senior-BBC-journalist-Jeremy-Bowen-fire-accusing-Israeli-PM-playing-Holocaust-card.html
So, after a year or so, some cosy BBC review will mildly suggest a senior BBC editor clearly doesn’t know when to STFU in tweeting something stupid, and said editor will hit twitter to claim how offended he is.
Again.
Et, repetez.
Plus ca change.
Though I would never wish death on anyone, in al-Bowen’s case, as with Gardner, I can’t help feeling that the wrong chap bought it.
http://bbcwatch.org/2015/03/05/commentary-on-bbc-me-editors-holocaust-card-tweet-widens/
I am beginning to wonder if, like League of Gentlemen’s ‘special stuff’, there is an under-counter version of the BBC Editorial Guidelines that only a select few know about, especially the section where clever deployment ensures the CECUTT seal of approval if the spotlight swings.
It all plays on the power of the nudge and wink, which can rotate the mere words of a courtroom stenographer 180 degrees with ease.
There is now the ubiquity of “quotes”, which can of course steer the reader in any direction simply by sampling what is quoted. This is joined by ‘quotes’, which often.. too often takes reporting to opinion with all the subtlety of an elbow to the ribs.
And here we have “the old [insert meme] card”, ironically an old, discredited card in its own right.
Clearly it was meant to go much further than simply report. It was dripping with the baggage the BBC’s supposedly impartial top editor in the middle east has been allowed to flaunt over and over again with near impunity.
Interesting article about whether the BBC has a “Jewish Problem” by a rabbi who used to work for BBC.
http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/why-yy.html
If you have not bothered to read the link, please, please do so.
It also hammers home the Guardian point so beloved of many of us, and fear of upsetting Moslems!
“BBC journalist’s tweet on Netanyahu speech labelled anti-Semitism.
‘Once again Netanyahu plays the Holocaust card.’ Jeremy Bowen tweeted when Netanyahu acknowledged the presence of Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel in the Congress chamber.”
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.645566?
You, just to limousines montreal name a few scenes of Jack and the limo service dedicated to providing a variation of
his injuries.
Look into myy web blog … limousine service montreal