<< LEADER DISPLEASED ~ MAIN ~ ARTIST EXPRESSES OPINIONS >>
TRUE BELIEVERS
Mark Steyn on those bogus BBC Bush God quotes:
I know plenty of journalists who in the course of their careers like to tweak and improve a quote every so often. You know, the guy doesn’t say quite what you want him to say, so you give it a nudge that’s a little more pithily expressed. There’s a lot of journalists who do that. They’re not meant to do it, but the trick, if you’re going to pass off fake quotes, is they shouldn’t be so obviously fake. And this one is.
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have since both issued denials; Nabil Shaath now says he didn’t take Bush’s alleged words literally; and even the BBC is backing down (although, as Damian Penny points out, this is assumed by The Guardian to be the result of shadowy Murdoch influence rather than any doubts over the story).
So, who fell for this? Well, there were a pair of dopes in The Australian’s letters pages (“Any credibility the US may have had for leading a secular, morally superior campaign against terrorism is shattered”), and The Guardian and The Independent, which on Friday ran the quotes on their front pages. Here’s the Indy’s Rupert Cornwell:
The BBC reported that the White House had dismissed the allegations as “absurd”. “He’s never made such comments,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
But the BBC account is anything but implausible, given that throughout his presidency Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, has never hidden the importance of his faith.
Why, it just stands to reason that such a man would say things like: “God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” The Guardian’s Simon Hoggart also suspended his cynicism:
Horrible to learn that George Bush gets messages from God. Just what we need in the world: one more powerful man who knows precisely what is in God’s mind.
Also in The Guardian, the original plastic turkey dunce himself, Mark Lawson, senses “panic” in White House denials:
A West Winger has rubbished suggestions by former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath (made in a new BBC2 series from the distinguished and highly reliable film-maker Norma Percy) that Bush had confided the Almighty’s role as a sort of super national security adviser, a secretary of higher state.
That Percy may be “distinguished and highly reliable” bears no influence on the accuracy of Shaath’s claims. She merely filmed him as he spoke.
The likeliest reason for the White House’s panic is that they can see the trap set by the Shaath anecdote. Bush’s previous religious admissions have suggested that God was a kind of vice-president, whereas it now seems that George is the running mate.
To what “panic” does Lawson refer? White House spokesman Scott McClelland took a total of four questions on the matter towards the end of a routine press conference; his total responses amounted to just 75 words. Lawson, as earlier, is just making things up. Keep the fantasies coming, Mark:
Even before the Palestinian insight into his beliefs, we can guess that the president’s theology was in a mess. Throughout his five years in office, Bush has sustained a simple old Sunday-school world view in which external evil threatens American interests and is then met by force which believes it has God on its side. The fact that the perceived aggressors (Bin Laden, Saddam) also feel divinely justified is no more of an obstacle to this belief system than it has been for the religious throughout history.
Hurricane Katrina, though, severely challenges this exegesis. What can a president of such simple religious faith have made of the devastation of America by what insurance policies call an act of God? Whereas even an event as terrible as 9/11 could be sustaining and confirmational for someone of Bush’s apparent Manichean convictions, a sudden drowning of the chosen invites only agonised study of the Book of Job. This affront to Bush’s relationship with God may explain his public bewilderment during the weather crisis.
Lawson believes in plastic turkeys and non-existent panic. Isn’t Bush meant to be the guy with the simple world view?
It’s the utter implausibility. The BBC will do anything to discredit Mr Bush. His remarks, had they been true, are the diplomatic equivalent of opening a Esky of Bud and inviting the Palestinians to partake. George Bush is a seasoned diplomat and would never commit such a blatant faux pas.
Perhaps it’s a plot to make the MSM look stupid.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 10 08 at 06:35 AM • permalinkExegesis, Manichean. The guy uses words like this to establish his elite credentials, but underneath the slick veneer there is a complete failure to read the facts correctly.
The slant you get from him is that George is a simpleton-evangelist-in tinfoil-hat style of christian. And after Katrina, of course, all bets are off.
Is it any wonder we get sick of being lectured to by supercilious blowhards with accreditation?Considering the decision to attack Iraq was a one undertaken as a joint decision by the administration, what do these dimwits think happened?
GWBUSH: Guys, God told me to attack Iraq. Let’s go.
CHENEY: Uh…sure. Why not.
POWELL: Works for me.
RICE: I’ll set up the video feed.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 10 08 at 06:55 AM • permalinkRove’s at the bottom of this, gotta be.
Maybe he was in the next room, throwing his voice into Chimpy’s mouth.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2005 10 08 at 08:29 AM • permalinkI’ve banned “sandwhip”—he was obviously a troll. (See the “for the war before he was against it” post.)
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 10 08 at 09:26 AM • permalinkI was a Western Union operator in 1983 when I took a call from a reporter from U.S. News and World report, calling in his report on the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. (Many news agencies had this arrangement with Western Union at the time).
It was a lengthy transcription and there were many many quotations. About a week or so later, I bought the issue of U.S. News that included this reporter’s story. It had been heavily edited - perhaps 30% of his original copy was dropped. Some of the details had been reworded and it had all be rearranged. This annoyed me because I was sort of looking forward to seeing “my” work but in fact I recall thinking the article was for the most part much clearer after the edits, and not much different in overall substance. What concerned me was the quotes had been altered from the original, and in at least one case a quote attributed to one person by the reporter was published as a quote of some one else entirely.
I have no way of knowing whether any or all of the changes were ‘corrections’ based on additional or improved information of course, but still….
What should bother us most about this reporting—the bigotry, the stupidity, the gullibility, or the dishonesty?
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot on 2005 10 08 at 12:05 PM • permalink“anything but implausible”
Aha! I’ve discovered the British translation of “fake but accurate”!
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 10 08 at 12:20 PM • permalinkThe worst thing about this affair is that this allegation was denied by the whitehouse 2 years ago. How many papers included the Fleischer quote in their story?
Q Part of the same quote, Prime Minister Abbas suggested the President said that God spoke to him about al Qaeda and spoke to him about Saddam. Is that a stretch? Is there anything to that? How would you characterize that part of the—
MR. FLEISCHER: It’s beyond a stretch. It’s an invention. It was not said.
Posted by drscroogemcduck on 2005 10 08 at 12:30 PM • permalinkRumours are rife that journalists for the BBC, the Guardian, and the Independent routinely perform fellatio on Osama and other terrorists leaders. The news organizations dismissed the allegations as “absurd”. “No one has ever witnessed me perform such a lewd act,” said Mark Lawson, spokesman for the Guardian.
But the rumours are anything but implausible, given that throughout their history of news reporting, the journalists have never hidden their ardent admiration for the terrorists and their purported struggle for freedom.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 08 at 12:40 PM • permalinkOf course Katrina would put Bush in a panic, making him question his religious beliefs.
After all, the United States has never been hit by a hurricane before. Considering Katrina is the first one, it’s remarkable we even have a word for it.
Posted by tim maguire on 2005 10 08 at 01:13 PM • permalinkWhereas even an event as terrible as 9/11 could be sustaining and confirmational for someone of Bush’s apparent Manichean convictions, a sudden drowning of the chosen invites only agonised study of the Book of Job. This affront to Bush’s relationship with God may explain his public bewilderment during the weather crisis.
Lawson doesn’t seem to realize that if Bush was really this ultra-religious nut he’s being painted as, who uncritically accepts the word of God, he would probably welcome Katrina by rationalizing it as God’s smiting a city of sinners. But I guess Bush’s relationship with God only works that way when it fits into Lawson’s narrative.
Lawson believes in plastic turkeys and non-existent panic. Isn’t Bush meant to be the guy with the simple world view?
Ah, but it’s a sophisticated simple world view in Lawson’s case.
rhhardin—
“God drowned mostly Democrats”... because the Republicans all owned SUV’s that made them bad, selfish people and let them get out of town…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 08 at 04:11 PM • permalinkIs “highly reliable” a euphemism for standing slack-jawed in a corner and twitching with anticipation over something that must have been said because it “fits”.
Posted by Pat Patterson on 2005 10 08 at 10:15 PM • permalinkRupert Cornwall’s comment isn’t even internally logical, he acknowledges that-
-White House had dismissed the allegations as “absurd”.
and
- Mr Bush, has never hidden the importance of his faith.-
So if he agrees that Bush has never hidden his religious beliefs and that he denies these comments then how can it be plausible to suggest that he is hiding his beliefs now?
rhhardin wrote:
A Sunday ``Smite Report’’ would be a nice feature to pick up audience, not that I’m suggesting it.
What? Watching Andrea smite the latest troll isn’t enough? ;)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2005 10 08 at 11:25 PM • permalinkWell, I believe it. These are the same people who claimed that the Israelis killed 500 Palestinians at Jenin.
These are the people who tell their children that virgins await them in paradise if only they will blow themselves up and take as many others with them as possible.
These are the people who come back from the dead - note the ‘corpse’ on the pallet who got up and went home.
These are the people who claim a girl who was dumb enough to stand in front of a large machine and refuse to move was ‘murdered’.
Oh ....
The Age today Monday 10/10, unblushingly runs a letter to editor picking up on The Age’s fake God report: ”...a president who claims that God is hit mate, calling him ‘George’. - Nico Hirzel, Carlton.”
And guess who leads the Letters page - for the SECOND time in a fortnight, and for a THIRD time including a non-lead letter:
Margo’s mate Marilyn Shepherd, Kensington, SA. She writes, among other things,
“Vivian Solon was arrested for being a sex slave..” Yeah, right.While I’m at it, two other doozies from The Age today 10/10:
p2: The Age’s education editor, Shane Green, wins the national prize for excellence in education journalism. This is from the Australian Council of Deans of Education for best commentary. He argued (Jan 05) for “greater public investment in higher education, and against the shift towards students paying for their education.” Wow that’s controversial! Those academic deans didnt let their personal views get in the road of awarding the prize to this hard-hitting commentator.
But wait, there’s more in The Age today.
p17, Arts. Review by John Slavin of Left luvvie Robyn Archer’s show “I Protest!” (well, of course, that’s what she does). It includes:
“She encourages the solidarity of a rally with some nicely selected rebuffs to official complacency with statistics such as: ‘The ABC is the most poorly funded broadcaster in the world’.” I’m sorry, I’m trying to add a satirical note but it’s just too hard (sobs).well, a few minutes later I noticed this at Crikey (7/10):
The ABC will receive around $792 million from the Government this financial year, plus the millions it generates from internal businesses like film and tape sales and enterprises and the rental of facilities.
But ask any long-term employee and a cascade of rorts, real and imagined, come tumbling out. For example, it’s roughly a year since the biggest alleged fraud in ABC history started emerging. The sum is claimed to be just under a million dollars and the method of the alleged defalcation was simple.
It took advantage of poor checks and balances in the internal audit and vetting process that sees the ABC’s operations predominantly based in Sydney, but the checking of the invoices and other payment material located in Adelaide. It was based in the huge News and Current Affairs division and involved at least three programs and the Asia Pacific Service.
Then there’s the situation with contractors: they are used extensively throughout the ABC but there’s an internal rule that a contractor cannot do three successive contracts. Why? Because they would make them a full time employee (that’s three contracts of six months one after the other). So producers, camera people and other technical people working as contractors quite often have two contracts back to back and are then forced to wait around in no man’s land for several months before returning to work at the ABC on yet another contract or two.
Then there’s the scheduling of staff travel interstate and within cities: instead of people travelling to a location for a shoot together, the camera people, stills photographer and quite often a reporter and/or producer will turn up separately, with three different cabcharge dockets. That doesn’t happen all the time, but it has been enough to be noticed.
Then there’s the lack of knowledge about exactly how many leases the ABC has over office and telephone equipment, mobile phones, laptop computers, PDAs and the like. When ABC TV moved from Gore Hill to Ultimo in Sydney several years ago a host of telephone lines, handsets and other telecoms and office equipment were found to be leased, much to the surprise of ABC financial people.
If KPMG is tough-minded enough this funding and efficiency review could really make some gains.
The Age letters today has two clangers.
First, someone else who fell for it and took the Letters with him:
My mate, who art in heaven …
It is possible that a few days before September 11, 2001, Mohammed Atta may have said to a close friend: “Allah has told me to fly this plane into the World Trade Centre.” So why, I ask myself, can George Bush get by using words that a terrorist would use (“God told me to invade, says Bush”, The Age, 7/10)? We need — alongside reasonable security measures — intelligence and wisdom to be the basis for overcoming the threat of terrorism and not a president who claims that God is his mate, calling him “George”. That’s a huge overstatement and a selfish misinterpretation of religion.
Nico Hirzel, CarltonAnd second by our favourite refugee activist:
(after listing numerous examples of everything that’s wrong with Australian immigration)...
Roqia Bakhtiyari arrived in Australia and said she was an Afghan refugee with her five children. After four years of saying every single day that she was an Afghan she was incarcerated supposedly as a Pakistani — then surprise, surprise Paul McGeough ( The Age, 28/9) stumbles across the evidence Vanstone wanted to hide: Roqia is just a simple Afghan girl and so are her children, according to the Afghan Government and her family — who claim Ali Bakhtiyari is just a simple Afghan man as well.
Michael Saville (“Overdone”, Letters, 7/10), perhaps you could explain to us all just what DIMIA has to do that you would consider “bad” and deserving of the red-inked label “shame”.
Marilyn Shepherd, Kensington, SAI sent this letter to the Fin Review about 10 days ago. I thought the Fin Review was reasonably ethical about correcting its own reporters but not in this case!
Sir,
Geoffrey Barker writes (AFR 3/10/05 p62) “Prime Minister John Howard maintained that he had written advice from intelligence sources that asylum seekers had thrown children into the sea. A Senate select committee subsequently confirmed that no children had been thrown into the sea.” This is part of Barker’s case for “the federal government’s track record of political misuse of ‘intelligence’.”
The committee hearings in fact revealed that one three-year-old was thrown overboard (Vessel SIEV 7, 24/10/01), and another asylum seeker made such determined efforts to throw a child overboard that he had to be handcuffed (SIEV 9, 31/10/01). In the case of the notorious SIEV 4, asylum seekers wrecked the steering and engine on 7/10/01 and next day, unsurprisingly, the ship sank. Navy people rescued 76 children from the sea. Threats by asylum seekers to throw children overboard were so common-place as to be virtually standard procedure when their boats were intercepted. There was also at least one episode of asylum seekers ‘acting out’ a threat to throw a child overboard, using a real child but not dropping the child in.
{Sources: David Marr & Marian Wilkinson, ‘Dark Victory’, and Paul Sheehan, ‘The Electronic Whorehouse’.) SIEV = ‘Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel’.
Keith Windschuttle (Quadrant 9/2005 p22) cites a further instance of boat people deliberately setting fire to their boat, putting 100 people who could not swim into the sea, including several children, a 12-month-old and a two-week-old baby.#39 Since the New Year, the letters page at the Oz has been run by the spawn of Phillip Adams.
I agree Murph. I had a few letters published last year but they haven’t published anything I’ve sent in lately.
When they changed the format of the paper, I wrote in and congratulated them on the new layout and the new page parodying the letters from left wing conspiracy theorists. They didn’t publish that either.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 10 10 at 12:06 AM • permalinkI heard a report supposedly from Baghdad the other day, by a BBC reporter. He was saying that people are afraid to go out, and that this is causing depression. He interviewed a parent who was feaful that this was stunting the emotional development of his teenagers. There was no attempt to qualify it, to say that this was not across the board, just in some areas, or at particular times of day/night. It was cited as making people want to emigrate.
I thought this was a bit extreme, so I asked a reliable source who is living in Baghdad.
His response was as follows:” ...and did the BBC say that people were doing their jobs from home? or students attending school via e mail!!!!!
it is true though that people try to avoid being on the street at night unless it’s necessary but life goes on in Baghdad.
there are differences between one district and another, some are considered dangerous, others are slightly dangerous and some others are almost normal.
btw, where do traffic jams come from if people were staying at home?
the bbc is biased…..”
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Of course it would never occur to any of these chimps that Bush was talking to a couple of people who take relion seriously, and may have been using phrasing that their tiny minds could understand.