Tag Archives: BBC

Americans Say Iraq Better Off Now Than Before War

Posted on by
3

When I read the results of a BBC World News America/Harris Poll released today that show more than half — 57 percent — of Americans believe Iraq is better off today than it was before the U.S. invasion seven years ago, I couldn’t help but recall what Barack Obama and Sen. Harry Reid had to say in 2007 about the effort to free more than 40 million people from an oppressive government in Iraq.

On Jan. 30, 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced legislation calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. combat troops in Iraq.

On April 18, 2007, Senator Reid said, “The war is lost” during a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

MORE OF THE POLL RESULTS

One in five (19%) say Iraq is much better off and almost two in five (38%) say the country is somewhat better off.  One in five U.S. adults (19%) say Iraq is worse off today, and one-quarter (24%) are not at all sure.

Men are more likely than women to say Iraq is better off now (62% versus 51%) and women are more likely to take a “wait and see” approach, saying they are not sure (29% versus 18%). Older Americans are more likely to believe Iraq is better off now than it was before the invasion. Just half of those 18-34 years old (51%) say Iraq is better off today, compared to three in five of those 45-54 (59%) and 55 and older (61%) who say the same.

Although Iraq may be better off, was the war itself worth fighting? Half of Americans (49%) say the war was worth fighting, with 19% saying it was very much worth fighting and 29% saying it was somewhat worth fighting. Two in five Americans (38%) believe the war in Iraq was not at all worth fighting. There is a regional difference on fighting the war. Almost half of those in the Northeast (45%) say the war was not worth fighting while 43% say the opposite. In the South, over half (53%) say the war in Iraq was worth fighting while one-third (33%) say it was not.

Americans are divided on the issue of whether the war in Iraq made America more or less safe. Almost two in five (39%) say the war made America safer while just under that (35%) say the war in Iraq made us less safe and one-quarter (26%) are not at all sure.

There is definitely a gender gap on this issue, as well. Men are more likely to say the war made America safer (44% versus 34%) while women are more likely to say it made the country less safe (39% versus 31%). There is also a regional difference here. Almost half of Southerners (46%) say the war in Iraq made America safer while just one-third of Westerners (32%) say the same.

The history of the Iraq war is still being written and there is still a lot of uncertainty to how the events of the past seven years will be seen. Even as the combat stage of U.S. involvement is over, Americans are not sure what the war meant for both Iraq as well as the United States. The next generation of historians will be the ones to look back and see what the post-Iraq war world looked like.

This BBC World News America/Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between August 19 and 23, 2010 among 2,340 adults (aged 18 and over).

‘Fox Cleared of All Charges in Henhouse Scandal’

Posted on by
Reply

“The accused fox was cleared of all charges after none of the hens who had occupied the henhouse prior to the alleged incident appeared in court this morning to testify against the fox.  Reporting live from the criminal court building in London, this is Peter Johnson reporting for BBC News.”

Lord Ron Oxburgh

Of course, the paragraph above is fictitious; however, when you insert East Anglia University‘s Climate Research Unit in place of the fox and Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chair of the House of Lords science and technology committee, in place of a criminal court judge, the findings of Lord Oxburgh’s review of the climate change e-mail scandal — as published in a Wall Street Journal article today — begins to lose credibility.

For starters, the man the Brits refer to as Lord Oxburgh is, by trade, a geologist.  Though not necessarily a disqualifier, since my dad was a petroleum geologist and a very smart one at that), being a geologist does not qualify one as an expert on climate.

More relevant to this case are Lord Oxburgh’s well-publicized views about climate change that call his objectivity into questions.

For instance, he told the press he sees “little hope for the world” unless carbon dioxide emissions are dealt with, according to a BBC article published in 2004.  In the same article, he opined that climate change makes him “very worried for the planet”.

Oh yes, you’re probably wondering who is represented by the hens in the opening paragraph.  That would be ordinary citizens of the United States — and, for that matter, the entire world.  You and I.

People who are made to pay the price each and every time foxes like those at East Anglia’s CRU use their positions — and government funding, I might add — to foist junk science conclusions into the public square and thereby provide politicians with the data upon which they base legislation that leads to ever-higher taxes.  All to save an environment that seems to have survived quite well for thousands of years despite us.

Talk about GLOBULL WARMING.  Sheesh!

Treatment of Climate Change E-mail Scandal-ous

Posted on by
Reply

First, a BBC News headline reported, Hackers target leading climate research unit. Ten days later, a new headline from the stodgy-and-liberal media outlet reads, Inquiry into stolen climate e-mails.

BBC News Climate Change Headline 11-27-09What’s wrong with those headlines?  They focus on something far less important than the fact that the e-mails exchanged between researchers at the UK’s East Anglia University appear to prove manipulation of climate change data on a global scale.  Why does that matter?  Because that data played — and continues to play — a significant role in the worldwide push for climate change legislation such as the soon-to-be-considered Copenhagen Treaty.

Below, I’ve prepared the headlines and lead paragraphs for five never-before-published “breaking news” articles about major events in history that mimic the aforementioned BBC News treatment of the climate change e-mails scandal:

  • Loss of 70 Million Means More Room for Modern Chinese People (Oct. 1, 2009):  Quick to dismiss the loss of 70 million of the country’s citizens since Chairman Mao came to power, Chinese citizens say they are thankful to have so much extra room on the 60th anniversary of the country’s communist revolution.
  • NYC Buildings Damaged by Aircraft (Sept. 11, 2001):  New York City’s skyline suffered considerable damage today after a pair of civilian airliners crashed into the World Trade Center buildings.
  • Hostages Should Have Known Better (Nov. 4, 1979):  Who’s to blame for 52 people inside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran being captured by Iranian revolutionaries?
  • Was Limo Driver Going Too Slow? (Nov. 22, 1963):  Many Americans were scratching their heads today, wondering if the driver of a limo should be held responsible for the chain of events that left one dead and another wounded in downtown Dallas this afternoon.
  • Was Equipment Failure ‘Seed’ of Japanese Fury? (Dec. 7, 1941):  Hours after Japanese Zero aircraft waged an attack on Pearl Harbor, some are wondering whether anger about having to fly substandard equipment may have caused the Japanese navy pilots to snap.

No Rain, But Many Umbrellas at Tiananmen Square

Posted on by
Reply

On the 20th anniversary of the bloodshed known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, there appears to have been little or no rain clouds at the site in Beijing where university students waged an anti-government protest.  There were, however, enough umbrella-toting government officials present to prevent members of the Western news media from reporting much news from the heart of mainland China.

The video shows a BBC Television correspondent being harassed both by uniformed Chinese policemen and plain-clothed government officials expecting bad weather.  Despite the fact that he possessed all of the necessary government-issued press credentials as well as a passport, he was prevented from entering Tiananmen Square.

And, no, the umbrella-toting goons were not members of the New Black Panthers Party for Self-Defense, but they show signs of having gone through the same type of training.

Hat tip: Boing Boing

‘Barack Uhhbama’ Fails to Impress UK Journalist

Posted on by
2

The introduction reads as follows:

Barack Obama, the World’s Greatest Orator (all news organisations), didn’t exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking …

Click here to read John Grace’s funny piece published today at the UK’s Guardian about the man who was long ago dubbed by this blogger, “Barack Uhhbama.”

British Court Rules: ‘It’s Baby’s Time to Die’

Posted on by
Reply

Offering what might be a glimpse into the future of the nation’s health care system under President Barack Obama, the British Broadcasting Corporation published an article this morning about a court ruling that will likely result in doctors unplugging a nine-month-old boy (a.k.a., ‘baby OT”) from the life-sustaining equipment that is keeping him alive.

Click here or on the image above to read this gruesome report.

Taliban PR Flaks Compare Obama to Soviets and — Oh, My God — Even to President George W. Bush!

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this week, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) drew criticism from liberals for saying he fears President-elect Barack Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.  I wonder, however, how those same liberals will react upon learning that representatives of the Taliban are comparing the president-elect to both the leaders of the Soviet Union and — oh, my God! — to President George W. Bush.

Bush & Obama

George W. Bush Barack H. Obama

Taliban PR flak (a.k.a., “spokesperson”) Zabiullah Mujahid offered just such criticism deep into a 45-minute interview aired yesterday on BBC’s World Have Your Say radio program:

“(Obama) is choosing the same way that Bush has chosen.  If he changes his strategy, maybe there is a possibility of optimism toward peace in the country and stopping the war.

“His idea is also like taking power from Afghan people by force, forcing them to do things which are not theirs, and this was the strategy of the Russians, the Soviet Union; they collapsed, and it will never be successful.”

Muslim Khan, described by CNN as “a grizzled Taliban spokesman who is one of the most wanted men in Pakistan,” shared similar sentiments during a rare interview:

“For us, the change of America’s president — we don’t have any good faith in (Obama),” Khan said. “If he does anything good, it will be for himself.”

Sadly, the Taliban’s criticism of Obama is likely just the first installment of foreign policy-related criticism directed at the woefully-inexperienced man who will soon become the 44th president of the United States.

* * *

See also: Taliban ‘Spins’ Facts During 45-Minute Interview