Damian Penny has a good summary of the story that the BBC put out and is now pulling back from, that President Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq.
Here’s the BBC’s original press release. And here’s what they are saying now.
The BBC moves in mysterious ways.
Bookmark the permalink.
I posted this elsewhere, but since it’s more relevant here, I’ll post it again.
For anyone wanting a preview of the likely manner of coverage of the upcoming ‘Elusive Peace’ documentary to be aired first on BBC this Monday at 10pm, one can follow the video link on this page to see an interview with the producer on the BBC newscast which covered the ‘Bush God’ story.
In the above article titled Bush God comments ‘not literal’
PM Abbas was quoted as saying:
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who attended the meeting in June 2003 too, also appears on the documentary series to recount how Mr Bush told him: “I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state.”
‘Strong faith’
But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president – who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East.
“President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny,” he said.
“We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted.”
Contrast this with what the Palestinian negotiator claimed, which is that the US president said he was “driven with a mission from God”.
“God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq… And I did.
“And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I’m gonna do it.”
So instead of the BBC questioning this divergence, which presents a very different meaning to what Bush might have said, they, along with the presenter in the video, prefer to go with the one that makes Bush look a fool.
The real fools are them and those who suck this rubbish up.
Another fine article from Melanie Phillips that ties in to the above from one of her readers aptly titledThe British Bias Corporation
Excerpt – but definately worth reading the whole piece:
‘The Today program uses a more or less sober and measured presentation and this masks the fact that they have abandoned the basics of fair journalism. They seem only ever to get an opposing view when a speaker says something with which they disagree. So, if George Bush (whom they loathe) is defended in some policy debate, such as recently, on the environment, they will get someone to counter this view. However, when the Bush government is attacked for human rights violations, no one is invited to defend him.
‘They also frequently refer to so and so “being right of centre” or a
“right-wing think-tank””. They never do this on the left. An example of this egregious behaviour is how they continually invite George Monbiot to comment on the environment. He is always introduced in a context which leads the listener to believe that he might be a scientist when in fact he is not. It is never mentioned that he is (pretty much by his own admission) a dedicated anti capitalist campaigner and well to the left.
Even though the BBC supposedly pulled back from the story, they really didn’t actually. If so, they wouldn’t have even printed this ‘revised’ story. It is still insinuated that Bush really did say those things by constantly quoting throughout the report how the Palestinian ministers interpreted the President. And all the lefties who take the words of the BBC and the Palestinians as the gospel will believe it. And the BBC knows this. How clever.
I really hope this comes back to bite them in the arse. I’ve saved a copy of their articles in case they try to alter or delete it. Watch the video linked to above to see how gleeful they are trying to make something of this. The interviewer really thinks she’s intelligent and ‘on to something’.
Strange how the BBC tries to run with story after story about Bush….yet in the UK we have a Prime Minister thats started an illegal war, has had numerous Cabinate Ministers resign due to sleeze, a huge economic down turn, rising crime and whose wife sends of his toe-nail clippings for “healing” to a witch doctor…..
Yet the BRITISH Broadcasting Corp chooses to IGNORE these rather strange characteristics of Tony Blair, and instead round on Bush at every opportunity……
Another thing is they have never made great play of Muslims who say “Allah Akbar”……they would NEVER dare question Muslim Faith…yet somehow they thought they could have a little snigger at President Bush’s “faith”……
Just more proof of how biased, two-faced and warped they really are…….
From James Taranto
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007368
What we have here is a classic game of “telephone.” God tells Bush something, then Bush tells the Palestinian ministers, then they tell the BBC, then the BBC tells you, and in the process the thing gets distorted beyond recognition. Only God really knows what he told President Bush–though if the BBC, the Palestinian ministers and Bush are all right, we’d say the Lord gave pretty good advice.
Teddy Bear, from your link, I had a look at that video excerpt about the ‘God’ comments and can only agree with you. The BBC presenter and her guest – Norma whatshername, the producer of the documentary series – seemed to be enjoying themselves immensely during their little stint of Bush-bashing.
The presenter made the point that those who made the claims about what George Bush apparently said were “Senior people.” Then, on the subject of White house denials, Norma made a comparison between “Two people who were actually at the meeting and people who weren’t.”
Of course, there was no evaluation of the possiblity that, since the meeting took place in 2003, Paleo memories of what Bush actually said might be a little suspect, quite apart from any desire on their part to suggest that Bush’s desire for a Paleo state was equal to his desire to deal with terrorism in Afghanistan and topple Saddam in Iraq.
But for me, this comment by Norma was the cherry on the top:
“In this series – battles between Israelis and Palestinias, Jews and Arabs – the only politician who talked about God was the president of the United States – and a couple of suicide bombers as well.”
Nice bit of moral equivalence there, but what is especially interesting about that comment is that it exposes the BBC’s propaganda by omission: leave out the raving imams who continually invoke “Allah” to legitimise the killing of “pigs and monkeys” and it’s as if it doesn’t happen.
I had to strain to listen to Norma. Her enunciation is poor. That made me speculate that the BBC is prepared to lower basic standards of who can or can’t appear on TV as long as there’s propaganda to be spread.
Nice work if you can get it.
Carl “in the UK we have a Prime Minister thats started an illegal war
Yet the BRITISH Broadcasting Corp chooses to IGNORE these rather strange characteristics of Tony Blair
Funny! I could swear that many people consider that the BBC have made much of that “particular characteristic” of Blair & his government.
I think I’ll edit the above comment slightly – eg replace ‘Paleo’ with ‘Palestinian’ – and send it to the BBC.
Anyone have a handle on the most appropriate BBC e-mail address for this purpose?
Wishful thinking I know, but maybe I can make a little dent in their PC armour. Journalists – even those from the BBC – generally don’t like to come across evidence that they are regarded with such scorn.
Bryan
>I had to strain to listen to Norma. Her enunciation is poor.< But not nearly strangled as Kirsty Wark's, surely?
Frank P
….Kirsty Wark’s,….
I ain’t hearda that broad, and I ain’t right thirsty to, but I hearda Kirsty Ali – she’s that Yankee soapie star.
I guess they ain’t related.
Predictably, this week’s Any Questions on R4 raised the subject and at no time was it pointed out by Dimblebore that the White House had denied the claim, even despite the BBC having covered the rebuttal.
The panel’s responses were as drearily pathetic as was that of the usual hand-picked 90% Guardian/Indy-reading audience.
Bryan – would never have guessed that you were that far West of us from your prose, sorry. Kirsty Wark is a feisty little Scot from agitprop on BBC’s ‘Newsnight’ who would not claim to be a Bushophile, I guess. Even with the Rab C Nesbitt book of enunciation at one’s side it is often difficult to untangle the product of her vocal chords when she gets roused. She can speak clear English if she tries, but drops all pretence when the furies erupt. I know, I know, you’ve never heard of Rab C Nesbitt, either….
Forget it, buddy, it was just a facetious dig.
Frank P,
Sorry, I knew that post was going to be misleading even as I was typing it. I’m actually East of you on that little toothpick of land, wedged into Arabia, that some are still allowed to call Israel, but I’m originally South African and spent most of my life there – hence the British influence you detect.
Well, as they say, ‘no sweat’.
I’ve always had great difficulty with the Scottish accent.
In the video clip linked above, the presenter refers to the Palestininan officials involved as “two very senior men”, as if this “seniority” confers greater credibility on their comments than anyone elses.
Presumably Mr Bush’s seniority should confer equal credibility in the eyes of the BBC?
All pigs fuelly fuelled and clear for take-off!
Bryan – No worries. Many of us have the same problem with a S African accent.
Kerry B wrote:
“What we have here is a classic game of “telephone.” God tells Bush something, then Bush tells the Palestinian ministers, then they tell the BBC, then the BBC tells you, and in the process the thing gets distorted beyond recognition. Only God really knows what he told President Bush–though if the BBC, the Palestinian ministers and Bush are all right, we’d say the Lord gave pretty good advice.”
So it’s ok for Bush to get his advice from God?
It’s no different to those Muslim extremists who sya they get theior advice from Allah.
Having God / Allah speak to you to guide your actions as a world leader is troubling to me which ever deity speaks.
Of if you think it is acceptable for a Christian God speaking to Bush to guide his actions you should not criticise those of other faiths whose deity speaks to them.
Has anyone seen a lost sense of irony around here? If so, contact A Lurker immediately… 🙂
Lurker,
Kerry B is quoting James Taranto of “Best of the Web.” Follow the link to see.
Taranto is an atheist. He is being mildly funny.
As for your “no difference” argument – I can, in fact, suggest a few differences. But, given that most of these matters are unprovable in this life, and certainly unprovable in this comments thread, I quail before the magnitude of the task of discussing the theology of several religions that it would entail.
The presenter made the point that those who made the claims about what George Bush apparently said were “Senior people.” Then, on the subject of White house denials, Norma made a comparison between “Two people who were actually at the meeting and people who weren’t.”
Bryan | 08.10.05 – 9:45 am
More importantly, from their own article on the subject, one of these ‘senior people’, in fact the most senior – Abu Mazan, put Bush’s comments in a much different light. Yet the BBC chose to present it in the ridiculous manner that the other so called ‘senior’ official claimed.
One can wonder why it then would have taken 2 years to surface, since the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab world, would know full well how this would have damaged Bush if it were true, and surely would not have wasted any time making it public.
Any Answers continued the topic, but Drivelby, having said two or three times that, er, we didn’t think that President Bush REALLY said what the BBC had reported, allowed the phone in to run.
The theme? An attack on religious faith generally, and, natch, Evangelical Christians in particular.
Mustn’t lose an opportunity to thrash those nasty fundies, Jonners!
Someone mentioned the Radio 4 program ‘Any Questions’. On next week’s panel is Shami Chakrabati, head of Liberty (a lefty agitators’ group – terrorist rights etc.), a LibDem (left), a lefty Labourite (can’t remember the names of the last two), and opposing them as the conservative is….. John Bercow. The pawn Bercow is to the left of Shami Chakrabati. What sort of political spectrum is that?
I assume that one particular religious faith was exempt from the general trashing 🙂
Anyone care to hazard a guess?
Verity – Oops.
Teddy Bear – I take your point.
They should offer courses at journalism school on analysis of the BBC and like-minded propagandist organizations.
That would balance the courses they no doubt offer currently on propaganda.
I mean, the BBC staff couldn’t possibly have got this good at it without long years of supervised study and training.
They should offer courses at journalism school on analysis of the BBC and like-minded propagandist organizations.
I would make an educated guess that by the BBC offering jobs for post graduates at these schools, to make them attractive to enroll, they pretty much dictate what courses they want them to teach. A bit like the Nazis with the Hitler youth. In this way they make sure the mindset they want is ingrained, which is why it is no accident that the liberal left dominate the media.
I’d be very interested to hear from any student or post graduate who hsa or is attending such a college of their impression about this possible propagandization – if there is such a word. If not, there should be, but I guess brainwashing works just as well.;)
For no better reason than I thought it was a good article and Lurker’s post put it into my mind, here is the article by James Taranto that made me so sure he was an atheist. “Why I’m Rooting for the Religious Right”
In it he argues, among other things, that US Christians are regarded as a threat to democracy for doing things that in other groups would be regarded as the very heart and soul of desirable participation in democratic politics; things like “organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates”
The Guardian shouldn’t be allowed to get out of this cleanly, they printed this bollocks as gospel as their front page lead, with a photo of GWB wearing a halo, ffs.
Maybe when the story falls apart they might employ some basic skepticism the next time such transparent bullshit surfaces?
Calabi
Sadly the Guardian wont learn a thing from this. They will issue an apology the day the BBC admits it is institutionally leftist. their worldview is hell bent on denigrating President Bush whether the story is fact or fiction.
In this way they make sure the mindset they want is ingrained, which is why it is no accident that the liberal left dominate the media.
Teddy Bear – True. ‘Higher’ education worldwide has been inundated by those with a leftist agenda.
Even tucked away at the southernmost tip of darkest Africa, you’ll find people wondering around with glazed eyes spouting Marx.
I know, I was there.
We’re in real trouble.
The worldview of the BBC has been a constant since the days of President R W Reagan. The ‘Ronald the Clown’ jibes, the occasional slips of the tongue, all were mercilessly ridiculed.
What we are witnessing is the basic anti-Americanism of the BBC. If there is a personal aspect to the BBC vendetta against G W Bush it began early during the Bush/Gore presidential race when Bush refused to speak to the Beeb’s commentators after they had spent the previous weeks of the election portraying him as an imbecile.
It is heartening to hear from over the Herring Pond that the Beeb’s and other MSM output has done little to undermine the resolve of the American masses.Terrific up-beat piece by Victor Davis Hanson that should cheer up your Sunday morning:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson100705.html
Extract: (last paragraphs)
Moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan, or Michael Moore in the short-term may be useful stilettos to the Democrats. But most keep their safe distance from such blood-stained rapiers, since few know how Iraq will turn out — or what such razor-sharp groups and firebrands will say or do next.
If Iraq is a more lethal theater than Afghanistan, and appears the more unstable, then we should remember that Saddam Hussein was sui generis, and his warped country the linchpin of the Arab Middle East. Who knows what Iraq will look like in, say, 15 months, given that its liberation had about that much lag time after the fall of the Taliban?
On the horizon there are a number of events whose public repercussions are impossible to predict, although they may well enhance the efforts of democratic reformers. The elections of October will be followed by even more voting in December. For all the predictions of Sunni boycotts and subversion, at some point the wiser ones will participate — understanding that the insurgents are losing, destroying not the Americans, but their own country in the process, and that a constitution moves onward, with or without them.
Soon there will be a globally televised trial of Saddam Hussein that may well shock the Arab autocracies — especially when their unfree populations gaze on the most well-known and thuggish of the Arab illegitimate leaders, chained in the docket and demurring to a constitutionally-appointed judge.
Yes, America is divided about Left/Right politics and over occasional antiwar street theater. But on the major issue of the war on terror and Iraq, most critics have very few ideas of doing anything other than what we are doing right now. The result is a strange consensus that few speak about — but fewer still wish to undo.< Read it all.