What do the "Stop the War" coalition, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Liberal Democrats have in common?

Their websites have NOTHING to say about the capture of Saddam.

GEORGE BUSH WAS CAPTURED TODAY IN THE BASEMENT OF AN OLD FARM-HOUSE NEAR CRAWFORD.
HE MADE NO RESISTANCE TO FRENCH SOLDIERS.

The bells of St. Patrick's Cathedral ring joyously. Cathedral St. John the Divine took up the refrain. St Nicholas joined. Soon all the churches in New York were pealing in celebration. A cascade of sound washed over the city. Few New Yorkers had gone to bed that night. Cell phones were functioning, and everyone knew of the French soldiers in Vichyngton suburbs. The church bells could mean only that the liberators had arrived. On the following morning, the day of Bush’s capture, enormous crowds of excited New Yorkers welcomed French troops. Everywhere were joy, delight, tears of happiness. Unbounded elation took hold of New Yorkers and the French soldiers and the whole civilised world.

The joy is hard to contain in Vichyngton D.C.
Says Jenny, 28, a bank clerk: ”Thank God George Bush is captured. He was a murderous and evil man whose freedom inhibited the peace in the youessey and other countries. Hopefully, the long slow process of instilling a Democratic government in the youess will advance much quicker now. That country has known nothing but ruling by fear and killing and will take a generation to mend”.
Phil, 31, engineer: “It is so very tragic that the youess always supported cruel, monstrous dictators like Saddam. Those dictators stole also billions from their peoples. The youessey supported Videla from Argentina -he ordered the torturing and killing of thousands innocent democrats, men and women. Also the unitedstatish supported the beast Mobutu from Congo and Indonesia’s thief and mass-murderer, Suharto. Half million so called 'communists', all very poor people, murdered. Also Marcos from the Philippines and Pinochet from Chile. The youessis always looked to their own economic and political interest, no matter how many lives that cost. Of course, George The Beast was captured and that is a joy for mankind, but I hope the youess will behave better in the future”.
Sheila, 54, researcher: “As far as Bush goes, he'll have his trial down the line.. that is, if he can live long enough. I'd watch my steps if I were him though because what goes around comes around. Let's not forget that Bush was behind killing thousands of Iraqi children and then parading their pictures all across the news -completely unnecessary if you ask me ! I just hope everyone gets what they deserve in this and for Bush that would be the lethal injection. Saddam for President!.
Peter, 39, sales manager: “My parents just informed that Bush was finally captured. I'm making a point of spending my entire day e-mailing to French soldiers to come online so I can talk to them. God Bless The French Troops! Vive la France !”.

Main charges retained by the French Government against Bush and the oligarchic oilthugocracy:
CIA backed the coup that brought the Ba’athists to power (1963).
Removal of Iraq from youessi state department list of states supporting international terrorism (1982).
George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the youessey ultimately “ had to ” destroy.
The scandal of the obscure Atlanta branch of Italy’s Banca Nacional del Lavoro, which apparently served as a paymaster for Saddam's arms buildup, and thus became a player in the largest bank-fraud case in youessi history ($ 5 billion funnelled to Iraq from 1985 to 1989).
Kurdish civilians were attacked with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. Unitedstatish intelligence sources confirmed that the youessi-built helicopters sold by Bush to Saddam were those dropping the deadly bombs (1988).
National security decision directives by the Bush administration ordering closer ties with Saddam the Butcher and paving the way for $1 billion in new aid (1989).
Sena(zi)tor Pre-SS-kott Bush's son, George Herbert Walker Bush ---father of the toppled unelected “president”--- authorised a series of programmes that not only armed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein but also provided him with technology that assisted in his development of chemical weapons like Sarin gas, and biological weapons (1990).
Uprising in Iraq in which, at the urging of the youessan government, Kurds in the north and Shias in the south took up arms against the regime in Baghdad. The rebellion was subsequently crushed by Saddam Hussein's better-armed and better-equipped forces, while youessi troops refused to come to their assistance (1991).
Iraq was collectively tortured for its defiance of youessi and Israeli domination plans for the region. Even official U.N. reports document that nearly 1 million Iraqis ---mostly the young and the elderly--- have died as a direct result of youessan embargo. Other expert estimates put the number at somewhere between 1 ½ and 2 million ---half under the age of 5. When compared to the unitedstatish population, this would be the equivalent of some 12 to 20+ million youessis killed since 1990 !
Bush stole the elections ---including 500.000 voters for President Gore--- thanks to the supreme “court” (all members appointed by Bush’s father) and thank to a massive voter-cleansing programme performed in Florida by Bush’s brother, Jeb (2000).
Waging an illegal war for oil under the forged WMD pretext.
CIA-puppet, Paul Bremer The Tyrant, seized power in 2003, having killed thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Bush was indeed one of the 52 most dangerous unitedstatish dignitaries listed in the Bush Regime Card Deck issued by the victorious French Army.

"Undaunted by the capture of Saddam, the BBC continues to view even this event through its defeatist, appeasement prism"

This comes as no surprise, of course.

Many on the left, in both the US and the UK, recoil violently at anything that can be construed as 'good news,' if it's at all traceable to the Bush administration.

At the same time, many on the left actively wish for bad news, if it will hurt Bush - a morally indefensible position.

There's a fuller analysis here:

"Let's Hope Something Goes Wrong - and Soon!"

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2003/12/lets_hope_somet.html

Saddam Hussein's government provides a textbook example of what happens when an institution has a revenue stream that is divorced from the will of the people.

The BBC is another.

Humphrys is to be paid £140,000 of licence funds to stop his naive waffling in the Sunday Times.
Is there no way that licence payers could demand that instead he makes print journalism his full time occupation. We don't then have to pay for his thoughts, unless we so wish.

Why do the BBC governors not find it odd that the line of questioning adopted by Humphrys & co so often matches the views expressed in the Guardian? Yet the Guardian is purchased by a tiny proportion of the population.
How can they regard the BBC to be doing its job when its views would appear to co-incide with where so few licence fee payers choose to read their news.

"Saddam Hussein's government provides a textbook example of what happens when an institution has a revenue stream that is divorced from the will of the people.

The BBC is another."

What a superb analogy !!

Actually, the poor BBC finds itself accountable to noone and can only assert its own feeble identity by rolling around and bumping into grown-ups. Too many of them are of modest intelligence, limited erudition, and without a grounding in either subject or history.......I mean that Rupert Murdoch paid Humphrys £140.000 to write his bilge every week in the Sunset Times makes one see just how easy money comes to those who peddle misinformation and become hirelings for interest groups and rich men.

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/

Steven Plaut in this article
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/saddam_jfk.php3
writes:
"The sorrow of the Arab students at seeing their hero captured should not be restricted to Haifa University. You might want to send condolence cards to the anti-war protesters and professors in your town, telling them how sorry you are that the guy who best represents their values and dreams is behind bars."

All the atrocities committed by Saddam do not seem to shame the world's moralists and liberalists who continue trying to ameliorate these acts and appease their "humiliated" egos.

Hopefully soon the BBC will be privatized so it will have to face the British consumer just as any order business has to.

The BBC hardly bothers to hide its pleasure whenever a bomb explodes in Baghdad.

The John Humphrys episode encapsulates the moral corruption at the heart of the liberal elite. Serving the people the BBC pretends, yet serving themselves to exaggerated pay-offs and privileges whilst pursuing their own political agendas funded by a poll tax ruthlessly extorted from poorest is the reality of it. This deserves an article of its own Melanie. Give this clique the flogging it deserves.

The BBC just does not get it. WMDs was not the main reason for the ejection of Saddam from power. The reason was due to a seismic change in the dynamics of real politic in the interntional arena, as a consequence of Sepember 11. Where deterence worked against dictators and the USSR, it just did not work against terrorists blinded in religious zeal.

With evidence of the Saddam regime assisting and enabling terrorists of the Al Qaeda and Hamas sort, the possibilty of such terrorists acquiring a WMD from the likes of Saddam, became a distict possibility. No president of the USA, charged with protecting America and its allies, post 9/11, could take the risk of proliferation and use of a WMD on US soil.

The BBC though wants to make the case that it was the existence of WMDs that caused the invasion of Iraq. The BBC just does not realise, that if Iraq did really have WMDs in launch readiness, the invasion of Iraq would not even have been entertained by the Allies. It was the possibility of surreptious acquisition, and passing on to terrorists of a WMD, that led the US take action against Saddam's regime. And this is important; the US did not wage war on Iraq, as is abundantly clear from the conduct war.

In view of repeated assertions of US connection to past oppression by Saddam, this material from the comments box of Australian blogger Gareth Parker is timely:

http://gareth.drivelwarehouse.com/archives/006353.html#006353

There’s a great deal of rubbish spread about on the role of the United States in arming Iraq. Many feel no obligation to burden themselves with facts.

For those who are interested in facts, a good source of information is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which has published a considerable amount of information about Iraq’s suppliers of major conventional weapons for the period 1973 to 2002. I’ve listed below, in order of importance, the percentage of Iraq’s armament imports supplied by various nations. The percentages have been rounded.

First cabs off the rank are the permanent members of the UN Security Council that were so determined to avoid war at any cost:

* USSR: 57%
* France: 13%
* China: 12%

Then, in order of importance:

* Czechoslovakia: 7%
* Poland: 4%
* Brazil: 2%
* Egypt: 1%
* Romania: 1%
* Denmark: 1%
* Libya: 1%

Finally, just before the odds and sods (which include South Africa, Austria, Switzerland, UK, Spain, Canada and Jordan) we come to the nation that many people consider to be the greatest source of wickedness in the entire world:

* The United States of America: 1%

I listened to John Humphries and Jeremy Greenstock the other morning. I was struck by the tone of quiet menace which which Humphries posed his questions.He is obsessed with his own world view to such an extent that that nothing, nothing will ever persuade him to change his mind. The coalition could pull Scuds, Sarin, Yellowcake and OBL out of a pit in the Iraqi desert live on TV, and John Humphries would not change his position at all.The BBC appear to pick many (not all) of their presenters on arrogance over intelligence. It really is time to abolish the licence fee.

John Humphrys is bloated with self-importance; they seem to have read Marshall McLuhan and decided the medium is the message.........actually he reminds me of a little terrier yapping around your feet......he is no Robin Day, and anyone with a sharp mind (Michael Howard ?) would shred Humphrys as you can see his questions a mile off.

Greenstock was far too polite - too diplomatic.

Humphrys is so PREDICTABLE. Surely Greenstock should have had a really sharp answer to the inevitable WMD question from Humphrys.

The other serious anti-US, anti-Brit reporters at the BBC need to be flagged too. Like Orla Guerin, calling the terrorists in the Sunni triangle "resistance" - continuing the bias she showed when she was reporting from Israel. And Matt Frei in his reports from Washington, always critical of Bush, always suggesting that prevailing US public opinion is in the Howard Dean mould. And ranting on about the "quagmire".

JohninLondon, AT

Bias at the BBC when dealing on matters in the Middle East, has now become an art form. It is perpetrated in various ways, some subtle, others quite blatant
1. Omission of facts as in the so called 'Jenin massacre'.
2. Highly tendentious camera angles to prove a point. re: 'Jenin massacre'.
3. A derogatory tone when interviewing Israeli politicians while a deferential tone for Palestinians. Orla Guerin's face almost distorts with contempt for Isreal.
4. Making enormous publicity of alleged Israeli misdeeds, but when proved wrong, the retraction aired in as inconspicuous manner as possible.
This open duplicity, masquerading as honest and unbiased journalism is good enough now, to be a subject for an educational course on journalism.

I wish someone would start the rumour that Saddam Hussein will be allowed to serve a life-sentence in a new purpose-built house-prison on the Wentworth Estate......I would just love to hear the nimbyism from BBC reporters and executives !

nothing, except perhaps jim naughtie, makes one jump out of bed quicker than humphrey's undertaking an interview.

"This open duplicity, masquerading as honest and unbiased journalism is good enough now, to be a subject for an educational course on journalism."

New Labour. Old Hatreds.

I love that comment I saw the other day -

"Does the BBC recognise it is biassed ?"

"Does a fish know it is wet?"

Bias is normality for the BBC.

"The coalition could pull Scuds, Sarin, Yellowcake and OBL out of a pit in the Iraqi desert live on TV"

yes Julie I do think the coalition do have such dreams.

Funny to think that both Melanie and her husband have taken the BBC Shilling

Yes, it's strange how such a biased organisation allows Beeb-haters like Mel and Andrew Sullivan so frequently onto its airwaves.
Would Murdoch allow one of his employees to continually berate him like Mel does and remain in his employ? They exploit the liberalism they deride, the hypocrites.