February 4, 2004
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:A British correspondent CC'd me
A British correspondent CC'd me on his letter to the Times of London regarding Lord Hutton and the Beeb:
Innocent bystanders must have found it profoundly hilarious that the media should have been so outraged by the good Lord who so calmly shot their fox. It is, of course, unutterably scandalous that journalists should not attack public figures based on inaccurate reporting of anonymous sources and when found out, to fail to verify their reporting and apologize. As for the BBC, that its journalists should not be not be watched over by vigilant editors must mean that it is only by sheer good luck that it has not laid itself open many times to slander suits. For the BBC now to complain of "bullying" is rich when one considers how it has behaved in the past. But then, on present form, the Director General never knew a few years ago that the BBC was merrily selling in Europe decoders that it knew it would render obsolete in about a year.
It seems the scandal was merely the the last straw that breaks the laden camel’s back. Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at February 4, 2004 9:29 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
GT:
Which version of Ritter was right? The earlier one that was convinced that Saddam HAD WMD? Or the new version that emerged, almost literally overnight, that claimed that Saddam not only had no WMD, but never had them?
Ritter would have a lot of credibility, having been an inspector and all, if he were to explain just how he pulled such a sharp 180-degree turn. Was there new evidence? Was there a conversation w/ an Iraqi defector?
Point is Mindles that the people who are the most important in this case, the UK voters who pay for and watch the BBC, seem to think that the BBC is more trustworthy than the government.
I don't really know. I haven't read the Hutton report nor do I plan to. It certainly wouldn't be the first whitewash in history, now would it?
Or maybe the people in the UK are upset because they never fully supported the war and the WMDs were crucial to what support there was. Who knows.
It's a free market of ideas. It's their choice.
Which version of Ritter was right? The earlier one that was convinced that Saddam HAD WMD? Or the new version that emerged, almost literally overnight, that claimed that Saddam not only had no WMD, but never had them?
Well, if you think about it, you can answer this question for yourself. The key is to ask yourself "Were the bloody things there or not?"
After that, I'd suggest a short period meditating on how it is that you manage to be so sarcastic and arrogant about someone who went against consensus and got it right, on an issue where you yourself fell into line with consensus and got it wrong.
OT, but the open sourcers have a bone to pick with the BBC as well:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/0818229&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88
Arrogance goeth before a fall? Or will all those in the British public who trust the BBC so much now start donating their fees voluntarily instead of having to be threatened with jail before coughing up the money to support these counterfeit journalists?
After that, I'd suggest a short period meditating on how it is that you manage to be so sarcastic and arrogant about someone who went against consensus and got it right, on an issue where you yourself fell into line with consensus and got it wrong.
I gather this is the same tone the Dean campaigners are taking. The problem is, if you accepted the evidence of WMDs at the time, and decided not to invade Iraq, you didn't "get it right". At best, you gambled and won.
I'm not aware of Dean, or Clark, or Ritter (or Chirac), saying they thought the intelligence was wrong. Rather, they opposed invading Iraq despite the WMDs. Which makes it tough for voters; are we supposed to rely on Dean's ESP when it comes to intelligence matters, or his lucky ability to guess right when it comes to foreign affairs? Or is it more reasonable to figure that Dean et al would oppose any war short of an actual attempt to invade the US? That if 9/11 had happened on their watch, we'd still be asking the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden so we could put him on trial?
Comments are Closed.