Printable View
Here are the readers' comments on BBC about the Bush-Blair meeting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2890155.stm
While the pro-war, and non-debatable members here will quickly try to write the anti-war comments off using some fictitious excuses, I find it interesting that not a single objection or charge levied by the critics can be answered.
.
lol the pro war people only have fictitious excuses huh?? figures that would come from youQuote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Here are the readers' comments on BBC about the Bush-Blair meeting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2890155.stm
While the pro-war, and non-debatable members here will quickly try to write the anti-war comments off using some fictitious excuses, I find it interesting that not a single objection or charge levied by the critics can be answered.
.
Never really expected the likes of you to notice it.Quote:
Originally posted by kleinma
lol the pro war people only have fictitious excuses huh?? figures that would come from you
The Source I Quoted Is The BBC Website
I hope you can read that.
Maybe understand that too :rolleyes:
.
This the same BBC that one of their own war reporters who is actually in Iraq complained about reporting fictitious stories and putting a totally negative and fraudulent spin on the war?Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Never really expected the likes of you to notice it.
The Source I Quoted Is The BBC Website
I hope you can read that.
Maybe understand that too :rolleyes:
.
I cant put any stock in anything the BBC even says if their own reporters are complaining about how fraudulent their reporting has been in this conflict.
X
Again, you seem to have completely missed the point that I was making it clear the source of the news was not ME but the BBC website.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
This the same BBC that one of their own war reporters who is actually in Iraq complained about reporting fictitious stories and putting a totally negative and fraudulent spin on the war?
I cant put any stock in anything the BBC even says if their own reporters are complaining about how fraudulent their reporting has been in this conflict.
X
Hope you don't claim me to own BBC and write up articles under all those names :D
.
Uhh no HoneyBee he was saying that even the BBC's OWN reporters have said that they are appauled at how they are being forced to twist the news into Anti-war propaganda.
I have no proof of that, just saying what i "think" Xanith ment:)
hmm is this the entire story? I coulnd't find more.
"Tony Blair has told the BBC there have been "tough and difficult" moments during the war on Iraq but claimed allied forces have made significant progress.
President George W Bush has said that "the grip of terror around the throat of the Iraqi people is being loosened".
Speaking at a joint news conference with the prime minister on Thursday, Mr Bush said both countries were committed to freeing the people of Iraq, "however long it takes".
Mr Blair said the US and UK would seek a series of United Nations resolutions to secure the rapid delivery of humanitarian aid and the creation of an appropriate post-war administration in Iraq.
"
Anywhoo i don't see anything wrong with that :)
Oh, that's only one reporter saying it once.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
Uhh no HoneyBee he was saying that even the BBC's OWN reporters have said that they are appauled at how they are being forced to twist the news into Anti-war propaganda.
I have no proof of that, just saying what i "think" Xanith ment:)
To counter that, there's this Peter Arnett episode. He has won the Pullitzer before, during the 'Nam war, and he is sacked for saying the initial US war plan seems to have failed. Wonder why....
And the BBC news article on this episode said earlier CNBC issued a statement saying it had no problems with Arnett's interview, and the next morning it said it had fired him.
.
Your right :)Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
Uhh no HoneyBee he was saying that even the BBC's OWN reporters have said that they are appauled at how they are being forced to twist the news into Anti-war propaganda.
I have no proof of that, just saying what i "think" Xanith ment:)
X
Yes, he deserved to be fired by both MSNBC and National Geographic. He did the interview without giving MSNBC or NG any notice about what the interview was about or what he might say. He made comments that were derogatory in nature about the U.S. military as well as Pres. Bush. His comments reflected badly on MSNBC and NG, they didn't agree with what he said, nor would they have agreed to let him do the interview if they had known about it.
There are always consequences for your actions, even if those actions are covered under the constitution. I heard he got picked up by a UK tabloid...movin' on down the career ladder.
Personally I think he is a disgrace, he should be tried for treason, and have his US citizenship revoked!
As a pulitzer prize winning journalist, he has no background as a military strategist.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
... and he is sacked for saying the initial US war plan seems to have failed...
As a pulitzer prize winning journalist, he should stick to "just the facts, maam".
As an individual, he can offer opinions, but certainly should stay away from being interviewed by the opposing, governmentally controlled News Media, when there is a war going on.
He has become an embarrasment to Impartial News reporting everywhere, and, as I'll repeat {paraphrase} from my other thread { ...and Don't Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out! } , should accept the consequences associated with being a blathering idiot.
;)