Melanie,
simply saying that the BBC was biased does not make it so.
Your strong pro-war stance on this matter is well known.
Surely you must admit that your pro-war feelings leave you poorly placed to offer an objective opinion as to whether the BBC was biased.

My thoughts exactly, Beefheart.

Do we want Fox 'News' in the UK? Dear God, no.

Beefheart - do you understand the phrase: does a fish knows its wet? You need to open your eyes to the never-ceasing left-liberal bias, minute-by-minute, day-by-day.

Just like Neo in the Matrix, choose the blue pill (!) and go here for example, to begin removing that veil of lies from your eyes:

http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Midwich you worry too much. By far the vast majority of the great British public are too ignorant to notice any apparent BBC 'bias', or, like me, simply don't care about it. Only the right-wing Commentariat get steamed up about it on a regular basis, and nobody takes them seriously anyway.

Mel obviously can't be _that_ concerned about the BBC's apparent political leanings or she wouldn't accept Radio 4's shilling, would she?

"...or, like me, simply don't care about it. "

You *should* care. The BBC and the left-liberal pacifists nearly lost us the last World War, and having learnt squat from that experience, are now doing their damnest to undermine the war on terrorism. Sounds ludicrous? Check out the quote below:

Churchill's doctor, Lord Moran, favored continuing the BBC monopoly. When he questioned Churchill about it, the great man exploded. "For eleven years they kept me off the air. They prevented me from expressing views which have proved to be right. Their behavior has been tyrannical. They are honeycombed with Socialists - probably with Communists."
From: "Diaries of Lord Moran: The Struggle for Survival, 1940-1965," page 417.

The anonymous comment about the BBC's shilling is way below the belt.
I for one am extremely pleased that Melanie is accepting the invitation to air her very important views on the the likes of Moral Maze and Question Time.
The BBC is not only a journalistic organisation, it also provides the main 'grown-up' broadcasting channel, which would be the poorer if she decided to boycott it. Having said that, I believe she is being courageous in writing as she does; she could easily lose future BBC work as a result - if she hasn't already.

I think there are two problems here:

Firstly, The BBC is state funded and has a Charter obligation to be even handed. This is just not the case for BBC News and undermines much good feeling that the BBC desrves for much of its other output. It's a shame because future administrations may come down hard on the BBC News organisation if there is no reform in the meanwhile.

Secondly, there is no problem in having news with an editorial point of view as long as it is recognised. However, there is now no real competition in free-for-view terrestrial television. Sky News is far superior to the BBC but is not free. I have no issues if there were to be a strongly right wing news (such as Fox) or a strongly left wing one - let the market decide what news it wishes to view. The limiting fator for achieving an open market for alternate news programming is the cost of access.

" The BBC and the left-liberal pacifists nearly lost us the last World War, and having learnt squat from that experience, are now doing their damnest to undermine the war on terrorism "

With respect to who posted that - its rubbish.

In the run up to the war it was an odd and loose alliance of (many) right wing conservatives and far left socialists that pursued the appeasement line. I suugest you investigate the transcripts from both the Commons and the Lords - it is probably a sobering read for many a partisanista from either side. Thank goodness for Churchill, Atlee and Bevin or we may very well be speaking German, Lord Halifax would have defonatley sold us down the river.

The BBC had very little to do with it given it has a requirement in its charter to be balanced.

I can't help but notice but when conservatives claim...no make that hysterically scream, that the BBC is biased what they mean is 'Its not extremely right wing'. Well thank goodness no it isn't - its mature, balanced and admits its mistakes when it makes them. This is the essence of good public service broadcasting.

I really wish that this blog and some of the people who post on it could grasp that.

If you want un-thinking news go watch Fox.

Less hysteria and more thought is what is required in the present climate.

Surely only the Editor of the Telegraph has the power to remove journalists from their jobs at the BBC?

True Fox News is a joke, but it is parody.

BBC is sad, very tragic, and very biased. I don't want Jimmy Cagney singing Yankee Doodle Dandy; but I do want Jimmy Stewart as Mr Deeds Goes To Town.

I want the BBC to be supportive of British forces in action; and I want them to be supportive of their licence payers; they have no role in trying to undermine British forces in action and when HMS Ark Royal crew ask for BBC links to be unplugged in favour of SKY.....it is clear they have over-steeped the mark, because usually Servicemen are cynical about political justifications for their combat; but they do not like to be sneered at or see enemy propaganda.

Dyke is right, BBC was an antithesis to Fox; pity there was not a station between these extreme positions

The BBC coverage was amazingly biased against the US and the war in general. You just need to watch their correspondent show on BBC News 24. Do they have anyone on there who is the slightest bit warm to the US & the war?

I say this as someone who was very sceptical about the endeavor until very near the actual event. Why don't you want Fox News on UK cable networks? We get Al Jazz here in Westminster as well as networks from all over the world. Fox News is no where near as bad as everyone makes it out to be (granted some of its show hosts are total blowhards).

If you truly believe that the BBC is unbiased, then its you who is unthinking, not us. I still watch the Beeb but I know they will bash the US any chance they get and take some pleasure in allied loses in Iraq and Afganistan. That is what they do...

I seem to remember that at least two in-depth, independent studies found that during the invasion of Iraq the BBC relied more on government information than any other UK broadcaster, and was least likely to report events from an Iraqi point of view. Did none of the BBC bashers see this?

And Andrew, is it the duty of a broadcaster to be "warm" towards a war? Can anyone be "warm" towards the violent deaths of thousands of people?

Andrew Ian Dodge:

"...(the BBC) take some pleasure in allied loses in Iraq and Afganistan. That is what they do..."

I'm sorry but this is absolute rubbish. The idea that BBC journolists and staff take pleasure at UK or US casualties is simply reprehensible and I am beginning to wonder what planet you rightists are on.

I have watched an incredible amount of BBC news over the last few years as well as ITN and Sky. All of them provide excellant moderate coverage with a commitment to balance and depth. The difference is that the BBC has a braod spectrum of journo's and guests and that say Sky has a more pro war slant of commentators.

BBC bashing appears to be the latest fashion.

It does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt generally but the more I read blogs then the more I realise that rightists bash the BBC simply because it is the BBC and a public service broadcaster.

How open minded of you......

JT: "I seem to remember that at least two in-depth,..."

I remember just one study bandied about by the BBC to suggest this. You want the truth though? This 'study' actually compared the BBC's output with Channel 4 News, and *relative* to Channel 4, the BBC was less left-wing. Big surprise (not). This crucial aspect of a therefore deeply flawed study was somehow missed out from BBC reports of same, with the net result that people such as yourself now cite it at face value. Funny that.

A stroy about the Cardiff Uni study on media bias is here
http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4705454-105559,00.html
where it points out that the news programmes compared were the BBC1 news at 6pm, the ITV Evening News at 6.30pm, Channel 4 News at 7pm and Sky News at 9pm. It's funny that the last poster must have missed that.

Oh yes, and to whoever claimed that the BBC nearly lost us the war - do you carry a similar chip on your shoulder over the way the Daily Mail supported Hitler?

I hate it when people throw around terms like "rightists" and "leftists": I'm neither, but I have observed strong BBC biases over the course of many months listening to the World Service. During the Iraq War, all claims by the U.S. and British militaries thrown in doubt, while Iraqi claims were reported more or less as fact. (The British Navy had the same complaint, and banned the BBC from their facilities.) Applied to the Israel/Palestine question, the BBC bias manifests itself in this way: Israeli officials are questioned quite severely and goaded into conceding points; Palestinian representatives, even if they represent terrorist organizations like Hamas, are served softball questions and their answers are accepted without any strong challenge.

"Sky News is far superior to the BBC but is not free."

Sky News is free....if you have a satellite rx - it is not encrypted and you do not need to subscribe.

Fox News is on digital satellite....I watched it during the events, but Sky was better.....more professional. BBC has been tawdry ever since The Falklands with Peter Snow.....it is usually the studio jockeys....the people out there ar usually good. I recall Robert Fox, Max Hastings, Brian Hanrahan.....they were okay.....Peter Snow was a twerp.

This time they got all excited about Ragi Omah who is naff and wrote crawling letters to the Iraqis. He was useless just like that overrated Christine Amanpour who is talentless.

M Wilkins

"Do we want Fox 'News' in the UK? Dear God, no."

Who is the 'we', white man?

Re the comment "The Daily Mail supported Hitler during the war".I do not suppose the contrbutor purchases that newspaper.That is his/her choice.I have no choice if I want to watch TV;I must first buy the BBC.I refuse to give the BBC one penny until it is reformed.I agree with Churchill and Lord Black:the BBC is a menace to Britain.

" independent studies found that during the invasion of Iraq the BBC relied more on government information than any other UK broadcaster"

As in "more rubbish from centCom" (Gilligan)

Story from The Gaurdian, March 26:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,922209,00.html

/begin quote
The BBC's coverage of the war has come under fire from one of its own correspondents in the Gulf who has fired off a furious memo claiming the corporation is misleading viewers about the conflict in Iraq.
[. . .]
"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.

"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.

"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected," Adams continued.
/endquote

It seems to me that when one of your own correspondents uses phrases like "this is simply not true" and "the truth is exactly the opposite" to describe your reporting, there is a major problem somewhere.

David Carr writes

"Do we want Fox 'News' in the UK? Dear God, no."

Who is the 'we', white man?"

'We' are the subjects of Her Majesty who don't worship at Murdoch's Altar. Bad show Mr Carr, but if you're a contented Sun reader than that's fine. Perhaps you should try expanding your horizons a little? There's a good fellow.

Of course the BBC is bias because every time it is attacked the people who come to its defence are anti-American, Jew-hating lefties. Furthermore, it only ever attacks from an anti-American perspective.

I'll never forget the fall of Baghdad as presented by BBC News 24. All the presenters had their bottom lips dragging on the ground and that face on Lyse Doucet which made her look like she'd just sucked a vinegar soaked lemon.

Ms Doucet was in Amman interviewing an Iraqi exile when the statue of Saddam fell. She was trying to verbal him to say that Iraqis were better off with Saddam than without. Imagine her self-righteous disgust when he chastised her and basically told her to pull her fat head in. She cut him off abruptly. So much for free speech.

It was obvious that the majority BBC reporters wanted the US to lose and Saddam to stay in power. You can hear the excitement in their voices each time they announce the death of another serviceman.

"'We' are the subjects of Her Majesty who don't worship at Murdoch's Altar. Bad show Mr Carr, but if you're a contented Sun reader than that's fine. Perhaps you should try expanding your horizons a little? There's a good fellow."

Colonel Blimp is alive and well and spending a good part of his day on Ms. Phillip's forum.

Anyone who seriously has any doubts about the BBC's prejudices (geez, having single-handedly re-infected Britain with the virus of anti-Semitism, there are real live people who could genuinely still have doubts?) should read in detail the reports published by that brilliant international lawyer, Trevor Asserson, at BBC Watch:

http://www.bbcwatch.com/

"Sky News is far superior to the BBC but is not free."

That's funny. I thought the BBC wasn't free either, but was supported by government-enforced exactions.

I love the Fox-bashing. I will say that I watched Fox during the major fighting, and I was rarely surprised by day-to-day events. Fox's generally pro-American coverage turned out to be accurate, because the war was fought extremely well by the Americans (and their allies).

I was always surprised by the reports that I got from the BBC, because they always made it sound as if the war was going much worse than, as it turned out, it actually was.

I dunno about bias, but I know who gave a more accurate picture of what was going on.

Well, Duke himself lets his agenda be known when he says, "It may not be comfortable to challenge governments or even popular opinion, but it is what we are here to do." He defines the BBC goal--"what we are here to do"--as to challenge the government. We can conclude that, according to Duke, those in the media who support the government are therefore yes-men--even if the inconvenient truth is that they might be more accurate about the facts, as Fox clearly was in its war coverage.

I would have thought the BBC's goal was to report the truth. Silly me.

Pooh if you want to spend your days with your head stuck up Rupert Murdoch's arse then by all means feel free to do so. I'd wager, however, that the view isn't particularly inspiring, and it probably doesn't smell too sweet either.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

There is a myth that Fox is a conservative network. It is not. There are plenty of liberals on Fox:
Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Myra Eliason, Susan Estrich, Robert Reich, Geraldo Rivera, Ellen Ratner, Greata Van Sustern, etc. The difference between Fox and CNN and the BBC for that matter is that there are more then "token" conservatives on there. On CNN you have the house Conservative Tucker Carlson for example. On ABC you have the house Conservative George Will. On Fox there is no hestitation in calling a terrorist a terrorist, on the other networks they refer to them as "militants" - whatever the hell that means.

"Colonel Blimp is alive and well and spending a good part of his day on Ms. Phillip's forum."

It's not a 'forum', it's a blog, you ignorant, shiftless traitor.

And, may I just add, that I consider it to be a very fine blog indeed.

"by that brilliant international lawyer, Trevor Asserson"

Oh he is, is he ? Long time since I saw him, tell me Pooh does he still have that little beard he was trying to grow when we were at university together ?

Blogaddict is right: If the BBC believes its job is to challenge government and conventional thinking, then it has taken on an adversarial and advocacy role that is incompatible with delivering honest and balanced reporting.

Journalism is so full of talking heads and wanna-be pundits these days that we often confuse what they do with reporting. I don't consider someone whose role is to create and publish personal opinion to be functioning as a reporter. If you think that balanced reporting results from maintaining an equal ratio of opposing pundits, you're mistaking prattling for reporting. (BBC, as well as most other news outlets, likes to claim that they're presenting a balanced viewpoint when they air a tandem interview with two opposing "experts". This is wrong. Tossing out questions to two opposing advocates is a great way to fill air time and drum up ratings, but it isn't necessarily reporting.)

By the same token, I don't expect reporters to use loaded questions, unexplained premises, and unspoken assumptions to massage a straight news report into a piece of biased advocacy. Sadly, that seems to be the SOP for BBC reporters these days.

Balanced reporting happens when reporters deliver balancned reports. Other shennigans are just show biz.

It was funny to watch CNN tonight...their White House correspondents with their self-proclaimed inside track being unaware of Bush's trip to Baghdad....thankfully !

I like the way this White House can be professional and discreet in contrast to the leaky ones of the past.

During the war I watched the news on Fox, Russia's Vremya/Vremya nedeli rebroadcast on the US Russian language station RTN, and the BBC (I live in America and have digital cable with 150+ channels.) Vremya was sufficiently biased that at one point Kogan, the Russian-American announcer, came on and asked the viewers to stop the threatening phone calls -- yes, they were hearing lies, but if lies are being spread in Moscow they should know about it. After a while I stopped watching the BBC because I wanted to find out what was happening.

Yes, Fox was definitely biased and pro-American. It also reported the facts. The BBC denied a) that the US Army had taken Baghdad airport when both Fox and CNN were broadcasting from there, and b) that US troops were in the middle of Baghdad, when Fox and CNN were broadcasting from there.

I plan to keep the BBC on my cable package, if only because it comes with basic digitial cable, and I figure it costs me something like $2 a year. On the other hand, its mostly gardening shows, house and people makeovers, and BBC news. Can't you Brits get your acts together and bring back Dr Who?

John, Who in 2005!

M. Wilkins - --Perhaps you should try expanding your horizons a little?--

What have you got against FoxNews horizons? Got something against an American POV? It's not that FN is RW, it could be that you're so far to the left, it's a shock to your system.

Beeb's getting nervous. This isn't the first FN attack by a beeber. It's like FN's the boogyman and they're trying to ward it off. I mean, FoxNews only pulls in barely 3m domestic viewers a day, how can that number cause concern? After all, BBC Radio reaches over 110m. And w/the blatant anti-Americanism, it's no wonder the world hates us. The Beeb's done a good job.

The test of a network's news coverage is whether their account of developments square with what eventually happens. One saw how the BBC reported on Operation Iraqi Freedom and could compare it to the actual result. As far as I can tell, the BBC is reporting that the US efforts in postwar Iraq are failing dismally. Whether or not those reports are "biased" in the sense of skewed by some systematic error will be shown in due course. Anyone Iraqi who thinks the BBC is painting the true picture should rely on it in preparing for his own personal future. If you believe in your weatherman, you will dress accordingly.

Sandy, I think you'll find more anti- than pro-Americans in the world.

What's wrong with being anti-American anyway?

"What's wrong with being anti-American anyway?"

It makes it far harder to enjoy KFC or flame-broiled peanut butter burgers washed down with Dr Pepper and Jalapeno beer

"What's wrong with being anti-American anyway?"

Nothing, but if you're a reporter, your personal opinions aren't part of the story. Leave them out, or be tagged as bush league.

Journalists who want to inflict their opinions on others should get a job writing editorials. Otherwise, why should anyone care what a reporter thinks?

"independent studies found that during the invasion of Iraq the BBC relied more on government information than any other UK broadcaster"

Firstly, that's not true: the study (not studies) claimed that the BBC was more likely to report government information, not to rely on it. This may well be true, but fails to address the BBC's attitude towards that information once they've passed it on.

Secondly, that's disingenuous: there are only four broadcasters in the UK, and only two news broadcasters, since ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5 all use ITN. We wish to compare the BBC not only to other broadcasters, but also to satellite and cable channels.

And I'm sure Norm Geras will be interested to hear that it's only right-wingers who have criticised that study. He did, and he's a Marxist.

John Costello wrote :
'The BBC denied a) that the US Army had taken Baghdad airport when both Fox and CNN were broadcasting from there, and b) that US troops were in the middle of Baghdad, when Fox and CNN were broadcasting from there'.

Perhaps the BBC knew what the US troops were really up to at Baghdad airport :

http://rense.com/general40/saw.htm

...just a thought.

Read the disclaimer.

and yes, I do know that George W. Bush was created as a teleoperated android by the Grey aliens who rule the world.

Wow, people exist who both know how to read and believe that rense.com piece?

Bill Dash
8-17-03
"
Film will soon be made public of an Iraqi Army officer describing how he saw a US Air Force transport fly Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad.
"

*Darwin checks calendar..*

It's nearly December, innit?

If someone, anyone, had a credible witness describing something like this in a credible fashion, I assure you the story would have been picked up by a journalist who wishes to expose American perfidy.

As this has not happened in the 3 months since your story "broke" I can't imagine how you can think there is the slightest shred of truth in it..

But then again..

"A man hears what he wants to hear / and disregards the rest"

=darwin

"Film will soon be made public of an Iraqi Army officer describing how he saw a US Air Force transport fly Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad"

How ordinaire........no little green men in UFOs then ?

For what it's worth, I was against the war and still believe the BBC is biased! They change quotes, they pull articles, their commentators smirk and show disdain for Israel and the US (particularly that washed out, pinched-lipped Deborah McKenzie)— one could go on, but. . . what the Hell!

They will learn soon enough that their PC attitude toward radical Islam will get them nothing but attacked one of these days by some "true-believer" quoting the Qu'ran to support his terrorist mind-set.

Lili

It would behoove the people commenting on this board to remember the basics. Bias, by definition, mean "a preference". If this inhibits impartial judgments, then mentioned bias is politically important.

Every last human on the planet is biased. It a direct consequence of our social lives. Fox News has a preference for America because it looks to satisfy a market demand. BBC is no different, no matter what they say. Bias isn't an inherent wrong, but ACTING on it often is. Bias is a trait, and must be found analytically. Those working at Fox News were quite obviously pro-war. How do we know that? Selection. Selection. Selection. Highlighting a view is a form of supporting. BBC isn't spared from this social reality. BBC actively filtered news that could (and likely would) polarize public opinion for or against the war. It chose against. Philosophical neutrality isn't a chosen side, and thus BBC loses validity to their claim of "balanced" or "impartial".

"What's wrong with being anti-American anyway?" Apparently you see nothing wrong, or you wouldn't have asked. So what would be wrong with being anti-British? Nothing...unless you're biased. Furthermore, holding contempt for the nation because of faults of its denizens is inherently wrong.

I sincerely wish harm to Chirac and his supporters, but I refuse to be "anti-French". Why should I condemn all of France because of the eternally snobbish Parisians? (Yes they're snobbish. Snobbish. Snobbish. Snobbish.) But not all French are.

So why is OK to say "Americans are stupid, greedy, warmongering fools"?

Tsk Tsk. La mode n'est pas une excuse. (Sorry, I shouldn't have used French! Americans are supposed to be...simpliste).

(Seething) M Wilkins, your choice of words and manner of argument betrays more than your stance.

--Perhaps you should try expanding your horizons a little?--

--Pooh if you want to spend your days with your head stuck up Rupert Murdoch's arse then by all means feel free to do so.---

It's unbelievable how archetypical this attitude is. Tell me, Wilkins, how big are YOUR horizons? Do you read anything else besides the Guardian/Spectator? Do you consider opposing views to be below you? Are pro-American behaviors simply childish sentiments that aren't befitting of "cultured" adults like you? Do you need a hanky for your snuff? You see, you should get one, because Americans are tired of being one for you.

It's amazing, really. Most Americans are descendents by European ancestry, and America is really the brainchild of a British man...Locke. Europeans thus claim parentage to us, and therefore patronage. Imagine our surprise when looking back across the ocean to our parent's "throne of civilization", we find a baby in a high chair instead.

Last but not least, how old are you? How long have you been fomenting this "cultural" superiority? Twenty? All your life? Would it be painful to know these words were crafted by someone of nineteen years? Let's read that slowly...nine...teen.

"BBC actively filtered news that could (and likely would) polarize public opinion for or against the war. It chose against. Philosophical neutrality isn't a chosen side, and thus BBC loses validity to their claim of "balanced" or "impartial".

The BBC is not to be compared with Fox News. The BBC is not a company it is a Public Corporation under Royal Charter and derives its status from a vote in Parliament (due again in 2006). It is a statutory body with statutory obligations to impartiality; and it does not mean one programme is presented by a Labour man, and another by a Conservative or Communist.......it means party politics is NOT to be in evidence.

This standard has slipped markedly since the 1970s. I favour that every person employed by the BBC should have to make clear party allegiance in the credits for every programme. Every journalist in every column.

The 1949 Act makes it a statutory obligation to finance the BBC under penalty of jail. It is a fundamental breach of human rights to be forced to finance a party political standpoint.

The BBC Charter renewal will be most fascinating....in January Lord Hutton reports and this will allow a debate on BBC politics as the Charter comes up for discussion.

The BBC World Service on radio no longer reflects Britain with Australian and other accents on the primary overseas English service.....that is directly funded by the Foreign Office....

There is no similarity with Fox which is private. The North Americans do not understand European media; they themselves are far more credulous with respect to television than are Europeans

----There is no similarity with Fox which is private. The North Americans do not understand European media; they themselves are far more CREDULOUS with respect to television than are Europeans
Posted by: Romulus at December 2, 2003 08:58 AM ----

Making assumptions about American psychology? A gullible American is either dead or an immigrant. Americans take pride in their skepticism and cynicism, and thus naturally abhorr superciliousness ...such as thinking that North Americans do not understand European media.

It is a timeless expression of European hierarchal society: ---The BBC is not to be compared with Fox News. The BBC is not a company it is a Public Corporation under Royal Charter and derives its status from a vote in Parliament (due again in 2006).--- Or perhaps you (you general) believe having a Royal Charter magically keeps the "Fair and Balanced" fairies locked in the jar.

Of course, maybe you shouldn't be so...credulous.

As a British Citizen I was extremely dissapointed in the BBC Coverage of the Iraq War.
Its Charter states it must present unbiased information to the British Public. It didn't. Also Mr Dyke saying that the BBC's reporting is not politically biased, but at the same time at indicating that a majority of BBC staff may be Liberal's and that could be something that could be studied seem at odds.
Let's face it BBC news reporting on IRAQ was terrible, I'd even say irresponsable. Definitely unbalanced.
I was always extremely proud of the BBC and its proffessional's. For me and many others around the world that image has become tarnished. I sincerely hope that the BBC does return to its unbiased reporting once again. The world needs a BBC like that.

US Marine's caught 2 Baath party officials who ADMITTED they raped Jessica Lynch. It is fact, it is irrefutable.

I notice no one questions the credibility of those Kenyan women accusing Brit soldiers of raping them, but of course they aren't American.

If you think that Jessica's injuries are all from the Humvee crash, then, in the words of one Vietnam vet, "you are a mental retard".

Nothing shows the hypocrisy of "Liberals" more than the GI Jessica saga; it's bloody obvious that Feminists planted the Washington Post story, yet the BBC and much of the media has not gone after the Feminists (Dana Priest and DACOWITS were clearly involved).

Any certainty is a delusion.

Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.

Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.