Katie Connolly Tells A Lie About Her Beloved Obamessiah

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.

Tea Party Movement Anniversary: Two Years of the BBC Getting It Wrong

Today is being called the second anniversary of the Tea Party movement in the US. The genesis of the movement actually began with a small taxpayer protest against the Democrat’s massive “Stimulus Bill” spending plan in Seattle, WA, on Feb. 16, 2009. They called it the “Porkulus Protest”. As it happens, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin actually referred to the Boston Tea Party when she posted about it on the day, although the name didn’t stick at the time. This was quickly followed by protests in Denver, Kansas, and a couple other cities, including New York.

It was on Feb. 19th, when Rick Santelli of CNBC made his on-air rant about how the country needed a new version of the Boston Tea Party that the name came to life. The impetus was already there nationwide, and word about the other protests had already spread like wildfire on the internet. And so a movement was born.

(UPDATE, Feb. 28: Paul Adams has done a report about the anniversary. It’s nearly good, but in the end the bias rears its ugly head. I discuss it in the comments below.)

Hundreds of protests large and small popped up individually all across the country. The BBC refused to mention any of it until reality forced them to acknowledge hundreds of thousands of people protesting on April 15. In case anyone has forgotten, or isn’t aware of how the BBC treated the movement and its participants, here’s a reminder. It’s no exaggeration to say that the movement was directly responsible for the Republican victories in November, and the current state of play in Congress.

With this background in mind, let’s look at the latest BBC article about the fiscal policy scene in the US.

Obama urges budget consensus to prevent ‘gridlock’

US President Barack Obama has urged Congress to find “common ground” over the budget to prevent a government shutdown.

Don’t expect any actual reporting, as this is just the BBC dutifully reproducing the White House talking points. Some may, of course, see this as a weakened President sitting on His hands, a substitute for leadership. Even the BBC News Online sub-editor understands this, and so makes sure to get in a word for the defense:

Although Mr Obama is empowered to propose a budget, it is up to the US Congress to pass it into law and then to distribute the funds.

Whew, that was close! A reader nearly thought He was weakened for a moment. Thank goodness it turns out that the office of the President never had the power to force things on Congress in the first place.

“Next week, Congress will focus on a short-term budget. For the sake of our people and our economy, we cannot allow gridlock to prevail,” Mr Obama said in his weekly radio address.

Naturally the BBC then has to spin the laughing-stock of a budget He actually proposed. Notice how they use His talking points again.

The president unveiled his proposed budget earlier this month and described the proposal as a “down payment” on future cuts to the US budget deficit.

He said the US had to live within its means and called for some reductions, but said “we can’t sacrifice our future” with drastic cuts.

No mention at all that it was a completely irresponsible budget proposal, and a deliberate defiance of the voters in November. Here’s a more honest point of view the BBC won’t let you hear.

But contrary to the call of Obama’s fiscal commission last December to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion by 2020 through deep spending cuts, elimination of scores of tax loopholes and major entitlement reform, Obama balanced his concern about fiscal discipline with a fresh round of spending on education and research, investments in infrastructure and high-speed wireless data network, and other programs he says are essential to the economic recovery and enhancing the country’s global competitive edge.

Sounds a lot like Labour-speak, no? No wonder the BBC supports Him to the bitter end. In fact, His budget adds more than $7 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. This is not fiscal responsibility by any stretch of the imagination. If He hadn’t given the finger to the voters like that, we wouldn’t be facing gridlock right now, and He wouldn’t have to call for togetherness like this. This situation is His own fault, but the BBC won’t tell you that. Instead, they’ve decided that – surprise! – blame lies elsewhere.

But Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, do not think the cuts go far enough in tackling the deficit.

Republicans put together an interim proposal to cut $4bn (£2.5bn) in federal spending on Friday as part of legislation to keep the government operating for two weeks past the deadline.

House Democrats have reportedly responded positively to the plan, according to CNN.

Neither party wants to be blamed for a government shutdown, but the Republicans say any plan will have to include cuts.

“Our goal as Republicans is to make sensible reductions in this spending and create a better environment for job growth, not to shut down the government,” Senator Rob Portman said in his party’s weekly address.

You’re meant to take away from this the idea that, no matter what happens, it’s going to be the Republicans’ fault, and that the President tried to stop them.

The BBC won’t spend a moment acknowledging the Tea Party movement’s anniversary, or what it has accomplished in spite of the vicious attacks from the media (including the BBC) and the Leftosphere. There’s much more to do, of course, and 2012 is still a long ways away. But whatever happens in future, don’t trust the BBC to inform you.

More BBC Dishonesty About Wisconsin

I’m sorry to keep making posts about this, but this time the BBC has really gone too far in their deceitfulness.

Wisconsin budget cuts: Madison rally attracts thousands

On the fifth day of such protests, opponents of the Republican state Governor, Scott Walker, outnumbered supporters of the bill.

The bill introduced in the Wisconsin congress would cut sharply the wages and benefits of public sector workers, and curtail collective bargaining.

Saturday’s rallies were peaceful despite angry chants on both sides.

“Sharply cut the wages and benefits” is union talking points. Same use of emotional, partisan language, just different choice of words than last time. But that’s not the worst part. Notice the “angry chants” were “on both sides”.

This is where the BBC disgusts me. Their Narrative about the Tea Party movement, as I’ve been reminding everyone for the last few days focused on the “anger”. There was never a raised Beeboid eyebrow at the anger of anti-Bush protests, and until now there hasn’t been a single mention about the anger of these union supporters. Until now, since they can pin blame equally on either side, thus mitigating any damage done to the Left.

But that’s still not even the worst part. This is:

Anti-Walker protester Jim Schneider, 69, waved a sign with “Hosni Mubarak?” written next to a picture of the governor, who has refused to negotiate with the unions.

Now, you might be thinking to yourself, “Hey, Dave, this is actually progress. The BBC is finally reporting on this kind of stuff when the Left does it. Not sure I agree with you here.” But then you’ll read this:

“The Egyptians have been a great example to us,” the retired teacher said. “What happens here is going to be very important to what happens in a lot of other states, just like the thing that happened in Egypt had an effect on a lot of other countries in the Middle East.”

The BBC even provides space to support this kind of behavior. They agree with the sentiment, of course. I’d like to point out, however, that for some reason the BBC decided to censor the image of the actual poster. I don’t know if it’s either of these two (Craig posted the one on the right in a comment to my last Wisconsin post), but I suspect it’s the one on the left:


In which case the BBC forgot to tell you that this guy is calling Walker a dictator. I’m sure that doesn’t help the Narrative that these area all good people, “workers”, salt of the earth, on the side of the angels. And if you missed which side you’re supposed to support, they make sure to mention that the governor “has refused to negotiate with the unions”.

And that’s it. Nothing else from the BBC about any signage or angry rhetoric. No mention of Hitler signs or union supporters comparing Governor Walker with Nazis. Instead, the BBC tries to play it as the anger being equal from both sides.

Not only that, but notice also how the only speaker for the Tea Party group was “Joe the Plumber” (for whom the BBC made sure to spell out his real name, a reminder of the moment when the BBC and Leftoid media tried to smear him as being a fake), but no mention at all of Herman Cain. Cain is an actual pundit and has a very large following. His name is even tossed around in discussions of 2012.

Why censor the news about Mr. Cain, BBC? Is it ’cause he is black?

There’s one more bit of information about these protests that’s been censored by the BBC: apparently a few alleged physicians (some actually med students) are handing out fake sick notes so the protesters can get off work. One of them even gave a sick note to Andrew Breitbart. Needless to say, this is a violation of federal law. But the BBC will keep quiet. Just like they’re keeping shtum about the fact that their beloved Obamessiah has sent His minions (Organizing for America) to help rouse the rabbles.

Don’t trust the BBC on US issues.

BBC Bias Favors Unions, Even In The US, And Censors News Of Violent Rhetoric

For the last couple of days, there have been major events in Wisconsin involving state government legislation intended to curtail public sector union entitlements in order to save money. Like several other states, Wisconsin faces a deep economic crisis and needs to save money and cut spending any way it can.

The newly installed Republican Governor, Scott Walker, has said that anyone who didn’t see this huge budget crunch coming must have been in a “coma”. He’s recently set forth a new budget plan with big spending cuts, including what gets spent on public sector unions. Needless to say, the unions are livid, and have taken to the streets.

The BBC reports it this way:

Wisconsin public workers protest over anti-union bill

Wisconsin public employees have crowded into the state capitol to protest the government’s plan to curtail their right to collective bargaining.

Teachers, prison guards and others say a Republican-sponsored bill would severely cut into their incomes.

In case anyone might get suspicious about the obvious trade union talking point here – ‘cut into their incomes’ – all doubts are dispelled immediately:

‘Scariest thing ever’

In Madison, the capital city of the mid-western state, the Republican-led legislature on Thursday was set to pass a bill pushed by Republican Governor Scott Walker that has been described by commentators as the most aggressive anti-union law in the nation.

The bill would eliminate most public workers’ collective bargaining rights and dramatically increase the amount they must contribute to their pensions and health insurance coverage.

“This is the scariest thing I’ve ever seen,” physics teacher Betsy Barnard told the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper of Mr Walker’s bill. “This is going to change Wisconsin forever.”

“Dramatically increase”? Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to know about that:

Currently most state employees pay nothing toward their pensions and only a modest amount for their insurance.

Yeah, I suppose having to pay a little something when you’ve been paying zero might seem “dramatic”. But that’s the union perspective the BBC is presenting, and not an objective fact. The use of emotional language here is advocacy behavior and not journalism. And what about the claim that the bill will “eliminate most” bargaining rights?

It’s also a bit of BS:

Walker, remember, is not removing unions’ fundamental power to bargain for wages. He is demanding that state workers put 5.8% of their wages toward retirement and that they cover 12.6% of their health care premiums, which would still have them paying more than $100 less a month than the average schmoe. He is also proposing that elected officials determine the shape of employee benefits without having to bargain them, and this as much as the added cost has unions crying “unfair.”

More reality can be found here:

Unions still could represent workers, but could not seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.

In exchange for bearing more costs and losing bargaining leverage, public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs. Walker has threatened to order layoffs of up to 6,000 state workers if the measure does not pass.

Instead of reporting (or, hell, even copying and pasting from the wire service) objectively, the BBC uses the emotional language of union talking propaganda, quite dramatically misrepresenting reality.

Next the BBC reports on the actual protests:

With teachers – and some students – massing in Madison to protest, dozens of schools were shut on Wednesday and Thursday.

Hundreds of protesters spent Wednesday night in the rotunda of the state capitol building.

Police officers stood guard outside Mr Walker’s office as angry protesters stood outside shouting for his recall from office.

How did the students get there? Aren’t they supposed to be in school? Well, no, because the teachers’ union closed schools for the day and bused the students in for the cause (video proof here).

How angry were the protesters, BBC?

Angry workers also surrounded Mr Walker’s family home this week, the New York Times reported.

How did they find out his address? Simple: the unions gave it out and sent their workers to harass the man’s family. They also went to the home of the Republican Speaker of the House in Wisconsin. Yet the BBC wouldn’t dream of frowning at this behavior in the way they did at the Tea Party protests. Quite a contrast. No suggestion of violence or dark forces behind it all.

Police in Madison, Wisconsin, estimated that 20,000 people rallied at the capital on Wednesday.

And that’s it from the BBC. Here’s a video of these heroic people. Guess to whom they’re comparing the Governor of Wisconsin?

In case that’s not enough, there’s this:

How about it, BBC? Any thoughts? You guys were oh, so critical when the odd Tea Party protester had a similar poster about The Obamessiah. What do you say now? Nothing, of course. Moving on…..

But Republicans, who were handed election victories in November in Wisconsin, say they have a mandate to cut government spending.

They say that despite the protests, voters approve of the cuts, which the Republicans say are needed to balance the state budget and avoid job losses.

Oh, those nasty Republicans, eh? Here’s what else the BBC doesn’t want you to know about what’s going in Wisconsin: a bunch of Democrat State Senators have gone AWOL because they don’t want to vote for it. If they voted against it, they’d show up. But they’re trying to boycott the vote instead. BBC: ZZzzzzzzzz

In sum: Biased in favor of the unions, use of emotional language which favors one side, censoring or misrepresenting of facts which harms the unions’ position. Don’t trust the BBC on US issues, or issues involving unions.

US Mid-Term Elections Live-Blog 2nd Nov

Since long before his election, the BBC has been fawning over The One.

After that the media has systematically ignored the failure of Hoax’n’Change, glossed over the rise of the Tea Party and dismissed the rise of small-government anti-Obama voices as ‘kooks’ and ‘racists’. 
Tuesday sees the BBC’s runaway love-in coverage hit the buffers of the US electorate, and we’re going to live-blog the humiliation.
Shadowing the BBC’s live broadcast, we’ll be hosting a chat here which will also include a feed of the latest results. We’ll be analysing both the results as they come in, and the BBC’s reaction to them.
It’ll start at midnight, and we’ll be joined by readers from David’s other blog A Tangled Web and also All Seeing Eye and a couple of others to be confirmed.

Sometimes Racial Voting Is Approved by the BBC

The BBC approves of voting for one’s own ethnicity: when it’s Mexicans doing it.

Border politics in Texas ahead of the mid-terms

I know I’m late in getting to this, but it’s been a long week. In any case, at the beginning of the clip (just after the intro voice over) listen to what the candidate on the stage says: “…we need workers…” Remember that for later.

Andy Gallacher is in a town where both the Democrat and Republican candidates are Mexican-American. The Democrat (the guy who says we need workers) says it’s an honor to be elected to serve, and diversity is what makes this country great. We’ve all heard that before.

Gallacher talks about how the race of candidates matters, but asks, since both candidates are of Mexican descent, how do the voters feel now? He gets a couple of Mexican-American vox pops to say that issues are more important than race. What a shock.

For what seems at first like no reason, Gallacher then speaks to a Mexican-American academic who says his research shows that, regardless of what they say beforehand, most people vote for the race in the end. The Beeboid even helpfully says, “for their own kind”. In stark contrast to all BBC reporting about white people, either in the US or UK, this is presented as a good thing. Hispanics need Hispanic representation. Never mind any non-Hispanics living in the area. If one non-white ethnic group has the majority, then it’s important for someone of that ethnicity to represent them in government.

I say it seemed at first there was no reason for Gallacher to bring in this academic to talk about racial voting because both candidates are of the same ethnicity. So why talk about whether or not the voters will vote for a Hispanic candidate? It’s a moot point.

Then we got to the part where he talks to the Republican candidate. Horrifyingly, he’s wearing a US flag pin on his lapel. He says he’s proud to be an American, while still being proud of his heritage. But for him, American comes before Mexican, as one is his cultural background and the other is his country. He also has lighter skin, no ethnic mustache, and no trace of the Mexican accent like his Democrat opponent does.

So he’s presented to the viewer after the academic who speaks of racial voting because he’s clearly a traitor to his race. He doesn’t talk about diversity, so he is no good. The subtext here is that the Mexican-American voters will and should vote for the candidate who is more proud of the Mexican part than the American part.

Remember the beginning of the clip where the Democrat said in his speech that “we need workers”? Of course he’s talking about the racial politics of illegal immigration. When he spoke of diversity to Gallacher, he was spouting the same old theme we heard a few months back on the BBC that it was racist to be against illegal immigration. Of course the qualifier “illegal” is absent now, as it always is when advocates speak. The Democrat doesn’t care about the law: he cares only about his race. When he’s talking about “diversity”, he means we should grant amnesty to people who look like him. How bringing in more of the same will lead to diversity is beyond my tiny little brain.

The Republican doesn’t talk that way. Or at least isn’t encouraged to by the Beeboid.

The thing is, there’s racial politics everywhere in the US. Right here in New York, former mayor (African-American) David Dinkins endorsed the non-white candidate for State Senate in the Democrat primary in my neighborhood. Here’s his reason:

I grew up in Harlem where we taught that New York City is a melting pot. Well I don’t agree with that. I have always said that we are a gorgeous mosaic. We have as many separate ethnic identities as the United Nations. That’s why we have a parade about every hour and a half. But it is important, it is so very important, particularly for the people of this district who vote on Tuesday to recognize how important it is to understand that the city is changing. Most people in the city are going to look more like us than others and that’s just a fact. It is not a bad thing. It is frankly a good thing.

Imagine if Giuliani had said the equivalent. The BBC would be all over it. Not only that, but Espaillat’s opponent was a Jew. You’ll never hear from the BBC that anti-Semitism is common in the African-American and Hispanic communities. And NYC isn’t a border town, so it’s inaccurate to portray the racial angle in that Texas town as being due to its proximity to the border. The fact that they’re Mexicans is obviously connected to the border, but not the racial angle in the abstract.

But the BBC approves of racism when it’s not white people doing it, so never mind.

LLAMAS HEART OBAMA

Backing up DB’s revelations about Matt Danzico – one of the BBC’s new recruits to its heavily biased Washington outfit -, which showed that he’s a strong Democrat supporter who campaigned for Obama in 2008, here’s some footage which might suggest why the BBC’s coverage of American politics doesn’t seem entirely impartial (despite Helen Boaden).

Anti Obama Violence Erupting in Kentucky?

Pelosi might be right about those anti Obama wingnuts, according to the BBC

US police are investigating the death of a man who was found hanged from a tree in rural Kentucky with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest.
Bill Sparkman, 51, had been going door-to-door in Clay County collecting census data.
The FBI is investigating whether Mr Sparkman was victim of anti-government sentiment.

Earlier this morning it was on the front page but has now been moved to “Americas”…maybe because of this?

But the motivation behind the killing — if indeed it was a killing — is not clear at this point.
A spokesman for the Kentucky police told TPMmuckraker last night that police were still looking into death, that an autopsy has been scheduled, and no cause of death has yet been listed.

And notice that the BBC “forgot” this from ABC

Investigators are saying little about the crime, but some people wonder if his death in the remote part of southeastern Kentucky known for its meth labs and hidden marijuana fields had less to do with his job than simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And another strange factoid emerges, courtesy of TPM

Late Update: An FBI spokesman, ratcheting back speculation that Sparkman’s death was an act of anti-government violence, tells us that he was found with his feet on the ground, not hanging from a tree as previously reported.

mmmm…that little titbit about anti-government sentiment – was it so tempting that the BBC should couldn’t hold back? And would they have even bothered if it had happened before January 2009?

Just asking…….

They did it!

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the result is historic. As for the BBC’s coverage, well thanks for your comments. Iain Dale was also unimpressed, and as evidence of the Beeb’s standing at home and abroad, here’s an American perspective:

The real fun network of the night was BBC America, which picked up the BBC feed being aired back in England. The coverage played like a good-natured “Idiot’s Guide to the American Election,” with references to such states as “North Hampshire.”

After all the hard work, though, it’s only right that the last word goes to the Beeb. And who better than John Simpson (a troll challenge here: can anyone make a convincing case Simpson might have voted Republican?) :

The United States has seen the biggest transformation in its standing in the world since the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in November 1960.

This is a country which has habitually, sometimes irritatingly, regarded itself as young and vibrant, the envy of the world. Often this is merely hype. But there are times when it is entirely true.

With Barack Obama’s victory, one of these moments has arrived

UPDATE: Iain Dale fleshes out his criticism of the Beeb’s coverage here: references to John Bolton’s outburst, “car crash TV”, and a note that this should be David Dimbleby’s last election make it well worth reading.

Quiz Time USA Speical

Quiz time! USA Special

Moving on from Brand and Ross, it’s time to get the crystal balls out and predict who will be the mystery guest on tomorrow’s Question Time. At the moment it’s looking dangerously balanced: Elizabeth Edwards, a senior adviser on health care to the Barack Obama campaign; Simon (America has to choose: Obama or certain doom) Schama; Clarence Page (another Democrat); and Cheri Jacobus, a Republican political consultant and strategist based in Washington D.C. So only three to one against the Republicans at the moment! So who will be the fifth? And you can’t have Mchael Moore – I’m taking him. A pat on the back and a ‘jolly well done’ to anyone who gets it right.

UPDATE: It’s just occured to me that this might be unfair: the Beeb could, of course, be late announcing the fifth guest because they want to balance it but they don’t actually know any Republicans, in which case feel free to help them out with your suggestions….

UPDATE 2: They found one! After thinking long and hard and after much scouring of the Daily Kos and Huffington Post they found a whole bunch of Republicans working for that other guy in the Presidential race. Now all they had to do was pick one… “Look! Here’s one that’s related to Nixon – everyone knows he was a bad’n. He’s even got ‘Nixon’ in his name. Perfect!” And so the fifth panellist is… Christopher Nixon Cox, executive director of Senator McCain’s presidential campaign in New York. The show’s taking place tonight. In Washington.

Phew, that’s a relief:

“McCain team ‘cynical, not racist'”

Says who? Says Obama. And the BBC considers this news? That the chosen one would pardon his nasty opponent from the unforgivable sin by substituting a lesser criticism. Sorry BBC, this is not balance- it’s reverence for your man. It’s bias.

They go on to report “The latest row began when the McCain campaign claimed that Mr Obama had “played the race card” by warning that the Republican would try to scare voters about how Mr Obama looked unlike “all those other presidents on the dollar bills” – all white men.”

Notice how the row began- not with the Obama accusation but… McCain, of course.

BROWN NOSING IT

. Did anyone else hear the simpering publicity that Gordon Brown’s visit to the USA is being afforded by Al-Beeb? I was amused to hear the BBC parrot that Brown will invoke “memories of JFK” when he stands beside Edward Kennedy today and urges the US to embrace the global world. A few points here; 1/ Given the size of Teddy Kennedy, I’m surprised that there is the space to stand beside him! and 2/ How patronising is Brown’s “advice” to the current Presidency and those MILLIONS who voted for George Bush? The BBC is pulling out all the stops to pretend that Brown is making any impact in the States when it is obvious that it is the visit by the Pope (an elected leader, unlike Brown or Bush, natch) which is creating the real headlines.

SHAME ON YOU.

The BBC’s relentless hostility to the United States is evidenced once again in the faux headline that “US Shamed by Mandela terror link.” This concerns the news that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has asked for “embarrassing” travel restrictions on Nelson Mandela and South African leaders to be lifted. A bill has been introduced in the US Congress to remove from databases any reference to South Africa’s governing party and its leaders as terrorists. Now I realise that Mandela is the patron saint of leftworld and the ANC are immune to criticism in BBC land but the fact is that Mandela DID plan terrorist acts and there are plenty within the communist ANC who relished carrying out other terrorist atrocities. The United States has NO “shame” as the BBC puts it in trying to exclude terrorists, although of course here in the UK the opposite situation prevails where we cannot exclude terrorists as the Court of Appeal made clear the other day.

Bushwhacked.

Sometimes I read a report and wonder why it is there. Nothing existential, just the non-sensical logic behind it. This morning the BBC headline runs ” Bush ‘is avoiding Iraq decisions'”- top billing for this story.

Let’s leave alone the fact that this headline immediately promotes a subjective, politicised point. Let’s question its very newsworthiness. Why is it there? Perhaps, I thought, because yesterday Bush was hailing Iraq progress and (as the BBC put it) freezing any “pull out” from Iraq. That’s newsworthy, really.

Yet what about today’s headline? Ah, well that’s the Democrat response. We’ve moved from reporting a decision arising from concrete events to the political strategy of one US party. Not cricket, BBC.

You can often tell the BBC position because they reiterate a certain rhetorical line in an article, underlining a particular soundbyte.

In this case, we first of all get the warm-up line from the Beeb, “But his opponents say the people want answers from this president, now.” (which certainly has a rhetorical ring to it inappropriate to a factual news item), and then the main event from Nancy Pelosi:


“”The president has taken us into a failed war, he’s taken us deeply into debt and that debt is taking us into recession,” she said. “We need some answers from the president.””

It’s like the run-up before the penalty kick.

What’s really funny though is the fact that the BBC headlines a story Bush “avoiding Iraq decisions”, when in fact he has just decided something- which was yesterday’s news. Today’s news is that he’s declined to follow-through with a decision that the Democrats wanted and want to intensify and speed up. This is rather more nuanced and requires the BBC’s special news skills (arising from its unique funding) to bring to our attention.

THE SEPTEMBER 1OTH PEOPLE.

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