Leak against this war
 

Leak against this war

US and British officials must expose their leaders' lies about Iraq - as I did over Vietnam

Daniel Ellsberg
Tuesday January 27, 2004
The Guardian

After 17 months observing pacification efforts in Vietnam as a state department official, I laid eyes upon an unmistakable enemy for the first time on New Year's Day in 1967. I was walking point with three members of a company from the US army's 25th Division, moving through tall rice, the water over our ankles, when we heard firing close behind us. We spun around, ready to fire. I saw a boy of about 15, wearing nothing but ragged black shorts, crouching and firing an AK-47 at the troops behind us. I could see two others, heads just above the top of the rice, firing as well.
They had lain there, letting us four pass so as to get a better shot at the main body of troops. We couldn't fire at them, because we would have been firing into our own platoon. But a lot of its fire came back right at us. Dropping to the ground, I watched this kid firing away for 10 seconds, till he disappeared with his buddies into the rice. After a minute the platoon ceased fire in our direction and we got up and moved on.

About an hour later, the same thing happened again; this time I only saw a glimpse of a black jersey through the rice. I was very impressed, not only by their tactics but by their performance.

One thing was clear: these were local boys. They had the advantage of knowing every ditch and dyke, every tree and blade of rice and piece of cover, like it was their own backyard. Because it was their backyard. No doubt (I thought later) that was why they had the nerve to pop up in the midst of a reinforced battalion and fire away with American troops on all sides. They thought they were shooting at trespassers, occupiers, that they had a right to be there and we didn't. This would have been a good moment to ask myself if they were wrong, and if we had a good enough reason to be in their backyard to be fired at.

Later that afternoon, I turned to the radio man, a wiry African American kid who looked too thin to be lugging his 75lb radio, and asked: "By any chance, do you ever feel like the redcoats?"

Without missing a beat he said, in a drawl: "I've been thinking that ... all ... day." You couldn't miss the comparison if you'd gone to grade school in America. Foreign troops far from home, wearing helmets and uniforms and carrying heavy equipment, getting shot at every half-hour by non-uniformed irregulars near their own homes, blending into the local population after each attack.

I can't help but remember that afternoon as I read about US and British patrols meeting rockets and mines without warning in the cities of Iraq. As we faced ambush after ambush in the countryside, we passed villagers who could have told us we were about to be attacked. Why didn't they? First, there was a good chance their friends and family members were the ones doing the attacking. Second, we were widely seen by the local population not as allies or protectors - as we preferred to imagine - but as foreign occupiers. Helping us would have been seen as collaboration, unpatriotic. Third, they knew that to collaborate was to be in danger from the resistance, and that the foreigners' ability to protect them was negligible.

There could not be a more exact parallel between this situation and Iraq. Our troops in Iraq keep walking into attacks in the course of patrols apparently designed to provide "security" for civilians who, mysteriously, do not appear the slightest bit inclined to warn us of these attacks. This situation - as in Vietnam - is a harbinger of endless bloodletting. I believe American and British soldiers will be dying, and killing, in that country as long as they remain there.

As more and more US and British families lose loved ones in Iraq - killed while ostensibly protecting a population that does not appear to want them there - they will begin to ask: "How did we get into this mess, and why are we still in it?" And the answers they find will be disturbingly similar to those the American public found for Vietnam.

I served three US presidents - Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon - who lied repeatedly and blatantly about our reasons for entering Vietnam, and the risks in our staying there. For the past year, I have found myself in the horrifying position of watching history repeat itself. I believe that George Bush and Tony Blair lied - and continue to lie - as blatantly about their reasons for entering Iraq and the prospects for the invasion and occupation as the presidents I served did about Vietnam.

By the time I released to the press in 1971 what became known as the Pentagon Papers - 7,000 pages of top-secret documents demonstrating that virtually everything four American presidents had told the public about our involvement in Vietnam was false - I had known that pattern as an insider for years, and I knew that a fifth president, Richard Nixon, was following in their footsteps. In the fall of 2002, I hoped that officials in Washington and London who knew that our countries were being lied into an illegal, bloody war and occupation would consider doing what I wish I had done in 1964 or 1965, years before I did, before the bombs started to fall: expose these lies, with documents.

I can only admire the more timely, courageous action of Katherine Gun, the GCHQ translator who risked her career and freedom to expose an illegal plan to win official and public support for an illegal war, before that war had started. Her revelation of a classified document urging British intelligence to help the US bug the phones of all the members of the UN security council to manipulate their votes on the war may have been critical in denying the invasion a false cloak of legitimacy. That did not prevent the aggression, but it was reasonable for her to hope that her country would not choose to act as an outlaw, thereby saving lives. She did what she could, in time for it to make a difference, as indeed others should have done, and still can.

I have no doubt that there are thousands of pages of documents in safes in London and Washington right now - the Pentagon Papers of Iraq - whose unauthorised revelation would drastically alter the public discourse on whether we should continue sending our children to die in Iraq. That's clear from what has already come out through unauthorised disclosures from many anonymous sources and from officials and former officials such as David Kelly and US ambassador Joseph Wilson, who revealed the falsity of reports that Iraq had pursued uranium from Niger, which President Bush none the less cited as endorsed by British intelligence in his state of the union address before the war. Both Downing Street and the White House organised covert pressure to punish these leakers and to deter others, in Dr Kelly's case with tragic results.

Those who reveal documents on the scale necessary to return foreign policy to democratic control risk prosecution and prison sentences, as Katherine Gun is now facing. I faced 12 felony counts and a possible sentence of 115 years; the charges were dismissed when it was discovered that White House actions aimed at stopping further revelations of administration lying had included criminal actions against me.

Exposing governmental lies carries a heavy personal risk, even in our democracies. But that risk can be worthwhile when a war's-worth of lives is at stake.


awsome source

ellsberg clearly missed rumsfeld's and bush's "the iraqi's will welcome us with open arms" war memos.

oh wait.

"they will as soon as saddam's dead or captured."

oh wait, he is.

they're not.

great post greedy. :tu:

- js.

no shit, the parallels are dead on...nice post, GL.

...and trashing Ellsberg was job one for Nixon's goons (Liddy and the team of dirty tricksters know as the Watergate Plumbers)...much the same way as the critics of the current admninstration are hammered as soon as they go public (think Paul O'Neill and Joseph Wilson).

it takes a helluva a lot of guts to for anyone in politics to stand up and call this bullshit war for what it is...

vietnam comparisons are not justified in the war with iraq, and shame on anybody who draws false comparisons to a much more severe war for political gain.



Iraq War Is Not Like Vietnam....

"As a Vietnam infantry vet, I saw firsthand the impact that war had on civilians and soldiers. I went to Vietnam as an impressionable 20-year-old to serve my country and to make a difference in the lives of the people of Vietnam.

I quickly discovered that we were not fighting the evils of communism as much as we were taking sides in a civil war, not unlike the British and French in the U.S. Civil War. The truth of the matter was that our dog in the fight was as corrupt as the dog he replaced.

The farmer in the rice paddy was caught between an ideology that we Americans abhorred and a corrupt government that we perceived as the lesser of two evils.

In retrospect, politicians and soldiers alike should agree that we were wrong in our approach and our war was fought at great expense to the people of Vietnam and to ourselves.

The war in Iraq, on the other hand, was intended to remove from power a person who was ready, willing and able to export terrorism to America. Establishing a democratic form of government to replace the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein is the right and moral thing to do. To state that this is immoral is to ignore clear facts.

We will replace an evil, sadistic tyrant with an interim governing body that will provide the people of Iraq a freedom they have not experienced for more than 30 years. At the same time we will eliminate a significant threat of terrorism to ourselves.

As a veteran of the war in Vietnam I have no illusions about our failure in Vietnam. However, I fully support the action we have taken in Iraq to protect Americans and to liberate an oppressed people.

We are not and should not become the policing state of the world, unless a conflict has an immediate or foreseeable impact on our own security. We have sent a clear message to tyrants around the world that as a nation we will not sit on the sidelines and wait, but will engage our enemies wherever they exist and whenever they present a clear and present danger to the lives of Americans.

We have a moral obligation to stand up to tyranny and to use our extensive resources to make the world a safer place for future generations."

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2003/20030411/60727.html



and....

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...ietnam,00.html

:tu: Excellent post Mr Greedy :AP:
Very pertinent points

certainly some of the particulars regarding the role of the civilians involved are not comparable...

...but from the perpspective of the administrations' conduct before and during the conflict in question (and i think this is the point Ellsberg is making), i think the comparison is completely relevant.

manipulating public opinion, cherry picking intelligence data, a carefully orchestrated spin machine, exploiting world events, shifting situational rationales for military action, significant intelligence failures, discrediting and demonizing critics, covert political agendas, and the fantasy that we can use military force to socially engineer the world into our own image - these are common characteristics of our government in both Vietnam and Iraq.

the only shame i see is following your leader over a cliff like a lemming because you think he's a stand-up guy, while your neighbor's kids are getting killed in a foreign country for no good reason. it happened in Vietnam and it's happening now. that's a shame.

you can't be serious, or........

:rofl: knew you couldn't keep up an intelligent civil discussion...

it's almost reassuring anymore...you know you're on the right track when a Rightie/Bushie tries to insult you...they wanna negate your existence but they ran out of original thoughts a long time ago:BL:

:rofl: so says the same group thats trying to recycle anti-war sentiment from the 60's by mislabeling Iraq as Vietnam part 2

i would say if anyone was able to compare the two in a beliveable way, its Daniel Ellsberg, who had first hand experiance of more than one kind during Viet Nam.

and couldent agree with knife more, its the conservative standard, when you back em into a corner with logical points, they come back with 'ya, well yer a fag' or 'yer stupid so why listen to what you say'.


weak at best.


very.

insult you? no no....it's merely an original thought....in picture form. :BL:

lol...it's a known fact the lefties have the "resorting to insults" market already cornered.
you guys sound like you're referring to the typical response from a liberal.



logical points? :rofl:

you need to step out of your ideological hidey hole and look at your own side.

i can't count the number of times i've been called a fascist nazi for merely supporting our president, no other reason.

have i ever called you a natsi? have you ever called me a hippy fag?

i rest my case.

sides, yer the one with hitler as yer avatar, so you must feel some kinship. but thats cool, cause after all hitler was cool.

look Greedy if you didn't run around spouting your personal opinions and the personal opinions of others as undeniable, irrefutable fact then you'd find that people wouldn't be so quick to call you names, but thats a common problem with people of your ideological mindset, Bush is Hitler, Bush is a deserter, Republicans eat babies and conservativism is a mental defect, go around to nearly any left leaning website and that pattern is repeated over an over again and then go to most right leaning websites and they're all laughing at you alot of times out of malice but mostly out of pity.

umm thats cause im right.:spin:

lol at the long sentance on that reply.

:no:

Hmmmm.

The links or parallels with Iraq and Vietnam are sometimes overstated - largely because many of those who wish to see an end to this current folly, believe it's demise will only come hand-in-hand with a public backlash against the war. Attempting to recreate 'the vietnam spirit' is entirely understandable.

As knifey pointed out: manipulating public opinion, cherry picking intelligence data, a carefully orchestrated spin machine, exploiting world events, shifting situational rationales for military action, significant intelligence failures, discrediting and demonizing critics, covert political agendas, and the fantasy that we can use military force to socially engineer the world into our own image - these are common characteristics of our government in both Vietnam and Iraq. This is not without substance - knifey has a fair point.

The original article did raise an important point though. A point about conscience and loyalty. The article basically argues that revealing your own government's deceit is a higher priority that your own freedom/life. Interesting point. The counterweight is... at what point does treachery become honesty? At what point do your actions cease to be the acts of a traitor and become the acts of a patriot?

Hypothetically, if, during a time of war and national strife, you can call your government a liar, a thief and a murderer, grab the classified documents to prove it and somehow avaoid being considered as a traitor - then shouldn't such actions apply at all times? Shouldn't that person be listened to, rather than be castigated as traitorous or branded as a 'Hussain-lover'?

Interesting post, greedy. :tu: :AP:

What?
 

Where is Blair?If your guys lied so did ours.He at least he deserves a mention.Once again,you think you did it all on your own.You Americans,it's no wonder people don't like you sometimes.

welcome to the WAR OFFICE lads!
 

politickal sub forum-lol :rofl:
good idea!:AP:

Re: What?
 

tony blair has been vindicated. he demands an apology...and he deserves one.


"Tony Blair has called on those who accused him of lying about Iraq's weapons to withdraw their allegations in the wake of Lord Hutton's report.

Mr. Blair said the "real lie" was the claim he had misled the country by falsifying intelligence on weapons of mass destruction or lied to MPs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3437979.stm



gavyn davies, ultra left wing head of the BBC was forced to resign today after the independent hutton commission found him and other BBC leaders responsible for allowing a false report claiming proof that blair manipulated intelligence about iraq just prior to the war.

The BBC has done immeasurable damage (on false, ideologically driven pretenses) to both the united states, britain (and especially tony blair) in it's extremely biased and deceitful coverage of the iraq war (and events leading up to it).

what many people also may not realize is that the BBC is the number 1 news outlet in the world, and had much to do with fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide regarding the iraq war.

heads are rolling at BBC..expect more to come. :RS:

Re: Re: What?
 

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/2802830/detail.html

LONDON -- The editor-in-chief of the British Broadcasting Corp. resigned Thursday, the second top official to step down after a judicial inquiry harshly criticized the broadcaster's journalistic standards.

Greg Dyke's resignation means the top two BBC officials have stepped down in the wake of the inquiry. The inquiry looked into the apparent suicide of British weapons expert David Kelly, who was stated as the main source for a BBC report alleging the British government inflated prewar claims about Iraqi weapons.

eh

Now I've got to write a big, long reply...
 

AH SHIT... now I'm gonna have to contribute to this crap...

Ultra left wing, eh? Somehow, I doubt you've ever met an ultra left wing person in your life. If you had, you'd realise that Gavyn Davies was far from being one and that the coverage by the BBC could hardly be described as representing... how did you put it???... ah yes, his ultra left wing views. Might I remind you that the selection of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman is conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under Nolan rules. Appointments are made by the Queen in Council, on the recommendation of Ministers. In other words, the allegedly left-wing Government appointed Davies to a chorus of cronyism, yet in the end, the BBC has provided the harshest critique of the Government. Why?

Well, I'll let your ignorant ass in on a secret, Scoob. It aint because it's chief was 'ultra left wing' (man, that sounds kinda catchy...) pushing 'false ideological pretenses'. It was because effective opposition to the Government has been non-existant in Britain for over 7 years. There is no body, no official party, no charity that has had the voice or the skill to stand up to New Labour. Conservatism is dead, Liberals are beginning to become noisier but are still essentially drowned out, and the Blair-ite philosophy has occupied much of the middle ground between left and right wing - leaving the opposition with nowhere to take a solid stance (as has been said before, Blair is a Tory in Labour clothing and that's a very difficult combination to tackle).

Essentially, the media has been forced to step in as a temporary, makeshift opposition - because no-one in politics has the solid ideology or balls to do it themselves. It's an awkward position for the media to be in, as they'll no doubt be accused of leaving impartiality behind (did mainstream media ever possess something as noble as impartiality?), but the alternative is a rather distasteful situation to be in - a Government with no opposition and a lazy media.

Now here's the problem: In the good old days, the Government could always rely on a party political opposition, never to go for the throats of those in power. The criticisms would always be blunt, because the criticisms always related to policy or scandal - they never really went to the core of the problem. They never really started to question the fabric of political life and the trustworthiness of elected officials, they never really encouraged the electorate to view politicians with cynicism and mistrust. The media (as an opposition) does all that and more because, unlike a party political opposition, it's paychecks and existence aren't necessarily thretened by an enquiring and cynical populace.

Scoob, I particularly enjoy your idea regarding the BBC 'fanning the flames of ant-american sentiment worldwide'. Ignoring for a moment that the BBC was tame in comparison to other British news sources, and accepting that the BBC is perhaps a more widely-used source, it's coverage of the war and the preceding months certainly had strong anti-war themes running through it, but how you make a logical jump to 'anti-american' is almost laughable. You seem to be suggesting that the BBC is responsible for encouraging 'anti-americanism' and that current UK/US foreign policy, pre-emptive striking, oil profiteering and economic strangleholds have little influence. You studiously manage to avoid all of these annoying aspects of the debate and reach a decision that "the BBC... had much to do with fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide regarding the iraq war". Christ Scoob, have you ever considered being a Government Lawlord?

Frankly, the Hutton report judgement will go down in history as a yet another establishment joke (if you want a track record of these sort of enquiries, take a quick look at the Denning Inquiry or the Scott Report). What the Hutton report will be remembered for, is the fact that many of the testimonies were openly heard and will remain on the net for years to come - thank God. Were intelligence reports changed - yes. Did the Government request changes to the documents - yes. Did the intelligence services do this under duress - yes. Was one of the dossiers ripped from a 12-year old PhD thesis - yes (was this mentioned in Hutton - no, that'd be far too embarrassing). Did the Government use a naming strategy to 'out' David Kelly - yes (but apparently, his name would have emerged anyway, so never mind). Is the Government rapped for any of these actions - no. The only point that the Government scored (due to the limited scope of Hutton) was the following question: did the Government use claims (45-minute) that it knew to be incorrect - no. If you want to read the testimonies - they're all there in glorious black and white.

Hutton was a fantastic coup for the Government, it kept everyone occupied about a statement made at 7o'clock in the morning on Radio 4 - in the end, a tiny proportion of the war coverage and merely a fraction of the mountain of bullshit that led up to this conflict. The UK public were fobbed-off with an inquiry that merely scratched the surface of the issue, yet was almost regarded as (by both Government, opposition and media) a test of the Government's honesty over WMD/Iraq. Chances are, we'll never see such an inquiry. The BBC were right to broadcast the reports they did, but were wrong to back to the hilt an over-enthusiastic journalist who couldn't resist adding the icing to his story.

tambourine-man....
 

the BBC has been ruined by people who put ideology and partisan political activism before journalism. the left are entitled to their views, but they should not have a broadcasting monopoly. left-colored politics have ruled the day and shaded news coverage there through much of the late 90's.

ideologically driven 'journalistic activism' is not, and should never be confused with, real investigative journalism. the independent and widely respected hutton commission found that the BBC journalistic integrity, as well as the ensuing and ongoing editorial oversight on this whole issue was dead wrong.

andrew gilligan’s reporting was much worse than merely sloppy. another example… on the day that the americans captured the baghdad airport, gilligan reported on the BBC that he was ''at the airport,'' and that ''the americans are not here.'' later in the day, another BBC reporter reported that he was at the airport, that the americans had seized it, and that gilligan was nowhere near the airport that day.

if the BBC were an honest news organization, it would have fired gilligan on the spot. but gilligan was promoting the anti-blair party line of the BBC, so they kept him on board. he said he was there and we weren't, when in fact he wasn’t there and we were. he should have lost his job then, but he was pushing the anti-war agenda and to them, the end justifies the means. so there was hardly just a momentary lapse of journalism there, the whole institution continued to back gilligan up long after his so-called 'gaffe'.

he returned to england and he filed his blockbuster story that the blair government had, in essence, faked the evidence of iraq's weapons, which in turn was the basis for both the british and american decisions to go to war. the core of that entire story was that blair "sexed up" intelligence information about iraq as a pretext for war. the truth..and that's why all these guys resigned..is that blair and his government did not "sex up" the intel.

it's exactly the same point kay made, bush and his team did not manipulate the intelligence. did they get bad intelligence? perhaps. but they acted honestly based on what they knew, what clinton knew, what france knew, what the UN knew regarding WMDs. the BBC lied, and they are once again blaming others instead of trying to correct the problem.

people jump up and down over the implication that bush lied, blair lied. but when it’s proven that the BBC lied, they try to change the story. if we had found a giant nuke aimed at NYC with saddams & bin ladens signature on it, the left would still claim that bush lied.


aw…thanks for taking the time and effort to let my “ignorant ass” in on that secret. since you enjoyed so much the idea of the BBC “fanning the flames of anti-american sentiment worldwide”…here’s some more...for your enjoyment…

“Greg Dyke, director-general of the BBC, issued an unprecedented public apology yesterday after BBC1 screened a live edition of Question Time shortly after the attacks on New York, during which members of the audience expressed violent anti-American views.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...552742,00.html

“The BBC news department continues its war of words over why Tony Blair was wrong to take us into the Iraqi war. It's failed attempt to cast light on an interesting subject "The Media at War" proved to be just another attempt by the BBC to bash the US and UK governments. It made no mention of the past failures of the media that had brought this situation into being. It wreaked of prejudice from beginning to end. The BBC used it's guise of 'media balance and objectivity' to cloak it's opposition to the war.”

“The BBC has become anti-American and anti-British because it feels itself to be in a bigger ball game than mere politics. It is time the government let the people of Britain opt out of it's legal obligation to pay the BBC Tax and fund this corrupt moralising.”

http://website.lineone.net/~maxwolfe/bbc.htm

“BBC bans reference to Saddam as 'dictator'
Reporters ordered to call him 'deposed former president”

“The British broadcaster was heavily criticized for its coverage – widely perceived as anti-war and anti-American – of the major combat in Iraq and the subsequent controversy surrounding the intelligence underlying the U.S.- and Britain-led pre-emptive strike.”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36360

“Embolden by (modest) public support and the backing of much of the press, the BBC went on the offensive yesterday by shifting attention away from the findings of the Hutton report and toward the Blair government's supposed attack on the BBC's independence. Time and time again the word "independence" appeared on last night's BBC Ten O'Clock News coverage of the fallout of the Hutton Inquiry. For example, in the opening tease Dyke announced that his "sole aim as director-general of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence ..."

”Surely the "sole aim" of the BBC, or at least the news division of the BBC, should be to tell the truth? No wonder the director-general went to the wall defending Andrew Gilligan, a dishonest, incompetent anti-war reporter/wannabe politician. Apparently, none of Gilligan's many failings mattered to Dyke because his "sole aim" was to show the government that the BBC was independent -- "independent" here interpreted in thoroughly obstructionist terms. Dyke further illustrates his cluelessness by stating: "I couldn't quite work out what they [the BBC's Board of Governors] had apologised for."

http://www.lastnightsbbcnews.blogspot.com/

Re: TM

Not to mention that the Blair government, assuming they were being truthful and having won the retraction, now owe the people a full explanation of why they thought the “45 minute” assertion was correct in the first place, if for nothing else that it doesn’t recur. There are people who've "outed" themselves claiming “credit.” Are they the one(s) Blair based his assertations on? Why?

I’d be interested in hearing about it.

Here in the U.S. David Kay went beyond his inspection mandate and all but guaranteed that Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s, although his explanations of how he knew Bush was actually being truthful sound more like careerism than the results of a solid inside-the-White House investigation. Be that as it may, assuming (again) that Bush was also being truthful, the President’s refusal to investigate how our intelligence services got it so wrong is beyond curious. It's irresponsible.

- js.

much like the stonewalling and non-cooperation with the 9/11 commission...the Prez is afraid the commission's report will damage his re-election chances, which means the GOP is playing politics with it all just as much as the Dems. you can take opposing and legitimate viewpoints on the aftermath of 9/11, but to obstruct the investigation on why it happened in the first place is shameful. no doubt, the truth will be a scathing indictment on the Clinton administration as well as Bush's, but it's Bush and the GOP who do not want a though investigation. conservative or liberal, this is something that oughta piss off every American.

So much for keeping this short...
 

Well, Scoob... I read what you wrote... and I'm not sure what point you are making - other than that you really should be considered as a contender for a Lawlordship. I'll also say that I only wrote a long reply because what I've read has pissed me off so much - I do have a job to do, so I'll keep this fairly short.

You seem to believe that the 'media'/BBC can be unbiased - or better yet, was unbiased before this whole debacle. This is bizarre, even for someone who clearly has a solid set of enlightened political and social opinions - such as yourself, Scoob. Putting aside for one moment, the more philosophical argument (that 'the media' in any form will be biased, because of the very human trait of perceiving rather than seeing), you complain about 'the left' having a broadcasting monopoly... this is palpably absurd as you seem to ignore the possibility of the media taking whatever agenda it wishes, ultimately to serve the interests of it's backers/owners.

Take, for example, the daily British newspapers, the day after the Hutton Report broke (or was leaked - whichever suits you). You'll notice that there were two polar, opposite reactions. Both 'The Sun' and 'The Times' yacked on endlessly about how this served justice and how brilliantly innocent the Government were of any wrongdoing. If they'd blatherd on any more, they might have been accused of advertising a washing powder. Almost every other paper took the opposite viewpoint (gaining confidence over the week), that the Report was insanely crippled in favour of the Government to the point that it was almost embarrassing. I'll let you figure out why those two particular newspapers acted like a pair of dribbling sycophants. Suffice to say that 'lefties' are often accused of imagining 'a vast Right Wing conspiracy' (Sound familiar Span?). Surely you're not suggesting that there's a 'vast Left Wing conspiracy' to usurp Bush and Blair? Surely not?

No... there isn't a big, evil, lefty media monster bashing Bush/Blair, 'pushing a false ideological agenda'. As I said earlier, Scoob, the mainstream media has been forced into the awkward position as a temporary, makeshift opposition - because no-one in politics has the solid ideology or balls to do it themselves. The mainstream media is aware of a very visably spineless political opposition, a complicit gaggle of Labour politicians and a growing discontent or lack of public faith in Government.

Contrary to what you may believe, this isn't an issue of left-right-wing bullshit. As Knifey has already said, there are some things that go beyond party politics. The crux of what I was saying, Scoob, is repeated below:
This isn't about 'the left' beating up 'the right' (or vice-versa) or even about the BBC pushing 'left-coloured politics', this is about the fact that the current political system is in trouble. It's about a bigger picture going on - right beneath the noses of those in power. It's about the fact that people are becoming more and more enquiring of their Government's actions, when the Government is becoming less and less accountable. It's about people genuinely losing faith in the system that is supposed to be theirs. It's about people wanting a real change in politics, not just a change in leadership or party. If the BBC is guilty of 'fanning the flames' of anything, it would be 'fanning the flames' of public scepticism.

Which leads me to your response regarding the BBC 'fanning the flames of anti-americanism'. First, I should make clear that I am not anti-american (despite what you may believe). Essentially, you're a good lot - and that Constitution thing you guys always used to bang on about seemed like an excellent idea. Shame it got turned into a deformed political football.

I took a look at the links you provided, Scoob. I have to say that I actually watched the Question Time show you mentioned. Firstly, as far as an example of BBC bias goes, it's not a very good one - largely as there's usually between 150 - 300 audience members in the studio and they aren't filtered (I've actually been to one). The views expressed on a live programme by audience members reflects the cynicism of the general population, not the BBC - unless you advocate that the BBC should filter/censor it's audience.

Secondly, the remarks made were not anti-american. Nobody said, "geez, those fucking americans, I wish some fucker would bomb them'. Many of the points raised were legitimate areas of question, surrounding American foreign policy, particularly in Israel/Paelstine. That someone said 'they brought it on themselves' was a fucking disgrace in my opinion - nobody deserved to die in that fireball, nor did anyone in that building 'bring it upon themselves' - but the fact remains that the debate surrounding American foreign policy always appears to be 'off limits', when there's actually a huge and potentially positive discussion to be had.

The other links you provided were pretty sad. Unfortunately, I never saw "Media at War" - so I find it difficult to comment on the programme, never mind commenting on a comment or providing an opinion of an opinion that your link gave. How was the programme? Did you even watch it?

I also had a chuckle over your link regarding the BBC banning the use of the word 'dictator' in reference to Saddam Hussain. Warning: low flying philosophy... is Hussain a 'former dictator' or a 'deposed former president'? If I was being sneaky, I might argue that the BBC was simply stating that he was a 'president' who was 'deposed' by the US/UK. Pretty accurate. As it stands, I'll simply say that rebranding of leaders/polititians is nothing new for the BBC. I remember when they banned journalists and talking-heads from mentioning Peter Mandelson's homosexuality. The BBC has made some strange decisions in it's time :BL: .

Your final link would also have been an interesting read... if only they'd bothered to perform some sort of analysis of the differing use of the word 'independent' and how it was equally over-used by the pro-Government papers following Hutton's publication. As it turned out, your link didn't seek to look at why each 'side' emphasises 'indepenence' and feels the need to pepper every sentence with it, as it turned out, your link was happy to just remain entrenched in the usual political shitstorm... but I fear we're returning to party politics again.

tm, why do you take this so personally? i’ve simply stated my thoughts, and what i believe to be rather obvious regarding the bbc. if you disagree, fine.. if you don’t like the links provided.. fine, that’s certainly your prerogative. i respect your right to disagree, so how about doing the same. you don’t have to get so “pissed off” about it as you said, or be so condescending in your replies.

way to go “keeping it short”.

lets see, tambourene man lives in england, was born and raised? is that correct? a lifetime of watching and reading things churned out by the BBC? correct again?

now lets see, scoob where do you live? where were you born and raised?

I take it personally because I choose to be active with my opinions concerning an issue that affects my Government. Being active and getting 'pissed off' is the only way to make any difference - always has been. As De Tocqueville said (though some say it was Hunter S Thompson) "the people get the Government they deserve".

With regard to my apparently disrespectful remarks, I don't see the point of a community of people all stating their thoughts and yet not interacting with them - that isn't a forum... it's a fucking diary. If you don't like me taking you to task for what you write (rather than what you think), try arguing back instead of accusing me of not "respect[ing] your right to disagree".

re: "way to go “keeping it short”" - Check the title of my last post.

i understand and respect your passion for what you believe in. i have tried to debate with you, but you tend to take it so very personally. you get pissed off, then pepper your responses with insults. i don't mind being brought to task for posting what i believe..but you don't have to do it by using phrases such as "ignorant ass".

a debate is not meant to change the other persons set of beliefs, and it shouldn't be a platform for animosity...it's just a debate.