Just giving the garage its summer clean and sort, when the following idiocy was aired on the PM program about ten minutes ago. They were discussing the Burmese sentence on the noble Aung San Suu Kyi.
I paraphrase :
“… and we’ve just had a mail come in on the subject of Burma, which says ‘Isn’t it a tragedy that Burma hasn’t got any oil ? Otherwise the resolutions would soon be passed and the invasion forces built up …'”
Now there are a lot of ignorant people in the UK, and this chap may not have heard, say, of a company called Burmah Oil, despite the fact that Denis Thatcher once decorated its board. Any idiot can mail the BBC.
But for the editor to consider this a serious point worth broadcasting – well, perhaps someone who is unaware that Burma is an oil and gas producer shouldn’t be in charge of what purports to be a current affairs program.
We all know why it was chosen, of course. It fits the BBC narrative. Why ruin a perfectly good anti-American sneer for the want of a few facts ?
Abu Ghraid is SO 2004. It’s 2009 and time for a new onslaught on US forces abroad and so the BBC is heading Today this morning with an item which promises “uncovered allegations of abuse the US-run Bagram military base in Afghanistan. Correspondent Ian Pannell reports on former inmates’ claims that they were beaten, deprived of sleep, threatened with dogs and hung from the ceiling.” I understand the American military eat their own babies too. As a propagandising arm for the Taliban, you just can’t beat the BBC. Every captured Jihadist knows the form by now; Allege the most hideous crimes of torture and humiliation against US armed forces and a BBC reporter wanting to believe such pigswill will appear, microphone in hand, prepared to provide an echo chamber for the enemy.
The recent success of the Iraq elections clearly runs contrary to the tiresome BBC narrative that everything our military has tried to achieve in that land has been a disaster. The “We’re all doomed, it’s a quagmire “ theme has been a constant feature of BBC coverage for years now so how to handle some good news? Well, earlier this morning they trotted on journalists Sudarsan Raghavan and Patrick Cockburn to review whether the results will lead to greater stability. Cockburn was quick to put the boot on, determined to suggest that despite all the evidence Iraq was still a disaster. Begrudgery incarnate.
I don’t normally get to hear the main “Today” political interview as I normally otherwise engaged by 8am but this morning I did catch it and what a gem it was. Essentially, it was a ten minute sneer from John Humphyrs. US Ambassador Bob Tuttle was in the studio and the subject was the Bush legacy so you can imagine the vitriol dripping from Humphyrs mouth. To be honest I thought the Ambassador showed remarkable restraint given the relentless provocation from John Humphrys. Every lurid left wing imagination over the past eight years was trotted out to damn the outgoing President. It was a useful insight into how the BBC thinks – and very unpleasant at that! Did you hear it?
Intrigued to listen to an interview on the BBC this morning that pointed out that tyrant Mugabe was cut off from “his feelings” because of a “rough childhood”. I was touched. South African journalist Heidi Holland then went on to equate Mugabe’s belligerent intransigence with the current US position on his failure to share power as explanation as to why there can be no progress here. So, even in Zimbabwe, the US is to blame, eh?
I noticed the BBC had Nicola “Superwoman” Horlick on this morning, explaining why one of the hedge funds her company manages had assets worth $20.9 million invested with the alleged fraudulent hedge fund run by Bernard Madoff. Bramdean, whose shares crashed 23.75p to 42.75p on the news, said that the sums tied up with Mr Madoff represented 9.5 per cent of its assets. I was entertained by Horlick’s line that in the worst case scenario, if everything is lost on this fund, investors will be only down 4%. Happy days, eh? So why did the BBC have her on in the first place given its hatred of capitalism? I suggest that it is because Nicola merrily went on to divert attention from her own company’s pooor judgement in this investment by claiming that the crisis was caused by poor regulation in the States. This fits into the ongoing BBC/Brown narrative that everything bad starts on the other side of the Atlantic. If all else fails, as it look it has in the Madoff situation, just blame Bush!
I see that the BBC has given great prominence to the shock horror news that the Pentagon has become embroiled in a row after the US Army released a photo of a general to the media which was found to have been digitally altered. US Army General Ann Dunwoody was shown in front of the US flag but it later emerged that this background had been added. The Associated Press news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defence photos.
I have a few questions here; 1/ Why is the addition of the US flag to an image of a US Army general viewed as a scandal in the first place by AP? 2/ Why was the BBC was so strangely subdued when AP’s disgraceful use of fauxtography during the Hezbollah/Israel conflict in 2006 was exposed time and time again?
Had to laugh at the name of the Syrian spokesman from the London Embassy given a fawning interview on Today this morning – Jihad Makdissi. The irony was lost on the Beeb. Ol’ Jihad was allowed to waffle on about how those evil Americans had flown their helicopters into sovereign Syrian territory and murdered innocent men, women and children. Ed Sturgeon showed his disinterest in interrogating Mr Jihad on the other Jihad that has its genesis in Syria by asking inane and closed questions on the topic. Then for good measure, Jeremy Al Bowen popped up and suggested that Syria was moving in a western direction and the timing of the American raid was unfortunate. At no point does the BBC even contemplate the possibility that Syria has been an active terror enabler for years and so in the BBC mind the Americans are once again child-killers randomly moving into Syrian territory for no good reason.
I happened to tune in to “You and Yours” at lunchtime and was intrigued by the main topic under discussion which was headed “Has the US lost it’s place in the world?” The thesis seemed to be that perhaps it was time for Britain to review the “special relationship” with the USA – for example there’s always China.
Say it ain’t so!The BBC reports that a missile from a suspected US unmanned aircraft (drone) has killed at least six people in a Pakistani tribal area close to Afghanistan. “Unnamed” Pakistani security sources say it hit a house in the village of Tappi, North Waziristan, and that the dead include... a number of Arabs. Mmm – Arabs? Anyone reckon that this is code for Jihadists that just got prematurely but deservedly dispatched to eternity? The most the BBC will accept is that this is “possible”. Or could it be just another of the many wedding parties that seem to have such bad fortune in these areas.
I was listening to an item on the Today programme just before 7am concerning Iraq and was struck by the comment from the BBC report who said that he was stunned when John McCain claimed last week that the US was “winning” in Iraq. Further, he added that this was “an irresponsible” comment. He went on to state that although the Surge had worked, a lot of success was down to “the awakening” (Former Ba’athists who had fought against the US now working for them) and the acquiescence of the Mehdi army. Naturally, no criticisms of Obama who opposed the surge, no praise of the US military who have prosecuted it. The BBC relentlessly propagates the idea that Iraq is another Viet Nam, that we have no business there, and that victory is not an option. Now I accept that some out there may think these thing (I don’t of course) but the BBC role is to provide balanced opinion and on this issue it spectacularly fails time and time again. The only drumbeat is that encouraging cut and run and so when John McCain and others press for victory, the little defeatists in the BBC attack them.
The spiteful anti-American narrative that pervades much of the BBC’s political output (excepting when it comes to coverage of the Chosen One, naturally) was evident in the item on the horrendous Jihadist bombing that has taken place in Islamabad on Today this morning at 7.09am. Dr Farzana Shaikh, from the “foreign affairs think tank” Chatham House (No hint of any bias there, right?) was quick to lay the blame for the Marriot Hotel bombing where it truly belonged – namely the United States. The bottom line, she pointed out, is that the US needs to back off putting pressure on Pakistan and in directly ugoing after the Taliban/Al Queda. Criticism of the Islamist bombers was perfunctory as the time given was used to bash the real evil out there – the United States.
Did you read that Radio 4 is planning to bring back “Letter from America” – the thoughtful programme presented by the late Alistair Cooke for more than 50 years, but re-vamped, re-named and presented by the broadcasting phenonomen that is…Justin “Obama” Webb. They have GOT to be kidding…..! As if it were not bad enough that nxt year they are bringing back “I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue”……
Just caught the BBC Ten O Clock News and listened to Al Beeb’s coverage of the conviction of three Muslims intent on mass murder. However what started me was when Frank Gardner appeared to tell us that although the men have been found guilty of a massive terrorist conspiracy to murder involving home-made bombs the men were not convicted on charges of plotting to bomb transatlantic airliners. Frank blamed the US for this failure in the UK courts- alleging that unspecified American pressure had caused charges to be brought before full evidence was gathered. So once more the BBC is keener to put the US in the dock before the murderous Jihadists. Gardner is a disgrace.
If you had the misfortune to tune into the Today programme this morning at 7.12am, you would have found yourself treated to John Humphrys in full on anti-American military sneering mode.
The news item concerns a US air strike on the Taliban spawn that infest the Herat area of Afghanistan and which killed dozens of the Taliban. Or at least that’s what the US armed force say, but who believes them, right? Straightaway this is disputed by “tribal elders” (Taliban, natch) “locals” (Taliban) and the ubiquitous “Human Rights” activists. (Taliban apologists) Humphyrs line was to immediately weigh-in behind the idea that the US forces had killed many innocent civilians – again. He brought on Grace Ommer from Oxfam (An organisation hardly noted for balance..) and he then made the remarkable assertion that this “war, if war it is..” is going very badly? I wonder what he thinks it is? Is he there to editorialise on this and if so who is there to provide a balance? Humphrys tried to get Ommer to say the war was going badly wrong but in fairness even she figured that Oxfam are hardly in a position to judge. She merely pointed out that US actions against the Taliban made humanitarian work very difficult. She appeared to long for the good old days when the Taliban were in sole control of the country and Oxfam could operate with impunity.
This item fairly simmered with anti-US military hostility and it is an example of how the BBC does all it can to undermine the efforts of the US military everywhere they operate. You should give it a listen, it’s an example of the visceral bias that permeates the BBC.