Monday, July 21, 2003

Beeb Vs. BlairIn this corner, weighing in with its biased, lying, agenda-ridden, parasitic, left wing propaganda machine, The Baghdad Broadcasting the other corner, the one statesman who has the balls to stand by his friends in a time of need, using his inner moral compas (sp?) to lead a nation a time of danger: Tony Blair.

Let's go over this one time, shortly:

on may 29 th, the bbc reports that a senior public official said the 'iraq dossier' was "sexed up". there was a lot of speculation who that could be. Captain gilligan (aka andrew gilligan) gives the house of commons a big F.U. and simply evades answering who the source of this could be.

the media asks david kelly, a lower level scientist for the british gov. he admits to talking to the bbc, but has does not think he was the source because of his status and because his comments didn't fit the description that the bbc gave.

kelly, under pressure all around, kills himself.

the culprit is clear: its the bbc....and of course david kelly. he shouldn't have taken his life, leaving this world using a permanent solution to a short term problem. the bbc didn't reveal his identity, and they didn't have to. the gov could ask and they did, but they didn't need an answer.

but the problem is that the bbc completely sensationalized the views of this man. some people are blaming kelly because he should have been ready to deal with exposure because the issue was so explosive. i don't.

kelly probably believed that he would be one more voice in a small piece. he didn't believe he said anything inflammatory, and did not know what the hell was said in the bbc. how could he? he wasn't a high level official, and according to himself, he never said anything that could be constrewn as "outrageous".

there is a problem with what the bbc heard and what was obviously said. and the bbc is in the wrong. from the reporting from baghdad with andy gilligan insisting the US was no where near baghdad (they had secured the airport) and saying they'd lied about the ordeal, to the blatantly biased view of palestine and israel, the bbc lies and miscontrues (sp?) and twists reality without attempting any balanced media. as a medium of information, you have to attempt to show both sides of the is this balanced?

in security, surveillance, detective work and credit agencies, there are files to watch because of a pattern of misbehaviour. a past of indescretion does not incriminate a person, but it certainly says future indescretion is probable.
The bbc has to be righted. not politically. literally. an agenda is obvious. a propaganda machine without accountability, but with unlimited resources to spread its views. i can't imagine why the rest of the world loves blair, but at home he is maligned. i think the bbc is the difference.

the british left wing hates his pragmatism, thinking he's a sellout. the right thinks its opportunism. this is a guy who stood beside the US even as his popularity sank like a rock because of his principles and he'll probably lose the next election because of his principles. he saw a chance to make the world better and did it.

whatever the nickpickers want whether it is to return saddam to power, leave north korea and iran alone, or see the US diplomatically isolated, blair will be judged in history who help defeat a known tyrant and helped freedom edge slowly into the middle east. this is significant.

let the footnotes say what they want.

No comments: