BBC Audience Agrees Obama 'Hypocrite and Coward'

[Teddy Bear]

What this story shows is while the BBC is successful swaying the public about many issues that they are not very aware about or hardly touches them, when it comes to their deep and firm beliefs, the BBC propaganda goes out the window.

Barack Obama called ‘a hypocrite and a coward’ over Falklands betrayal – BBC audience applauds
By Nile Gardiner

Harry Cole, news editor of the Guido Fawkes' blog, was interviewed earlier this week on BBC Three’s Free Speech show. Asked about the Falklands issue by host Rick Edwards, Harry blasted President Obama’s refusal to recognise the Falklands referendum, describing him as “a hypocrite and a coward.”



After all, as Cole pointed out, it doesn’t look good when the leader of the free world can’t even bring himself to support the right to self-determination, the very principle upon which the United States itself is founded. For background, watch this train wreck of a press conference by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland following the referendum result, which showed that 99.8 percent of Falkand Islanders wish the Falklands to remain a British Overseas Territory.

What is most striking about Cole’s interview is the loud applause which comes from a large section of the audience of mostly young Brits. There was no booing or hissing of his forthright attack on Barack Obama, which you might expect from a BBC-assembled crowd – quite the opposite in fact. There appears to be a growing realisation among the wider British public that President Obama really doesn’t like Britain very much, and that his knife in the back over the Falklands, and his hectoring, lecturing tone on Europe, isn’t very helpful for British interests.

As I’ve noted in previous pieces, Barack Obama is the most anti-British US president in modern times. When even a BBC audience turns against the insulting policies of the White House, the Obama administration should understand that it has a real problem on its hands when it comes to relations with America’s closest ally.

[steevo]

I have mixed feelings here that I'd prefer not to elaborate 'too' much even though I understand your point and it's significance. I've experienced a lot via the Internet over the years and it's deeply affected me.

For sure Obama doesn't speak for the American people. Even a substantial percentage of those reelecting him are from substantial minorities here, black and Hispanic, also our under-30 minds of mush and they don't think about Britain, nor America, just how the government can make life easier and, being cool. But long before his presidency the British media and populace at large (apparently?) looked down on America and Americans. Bush was Hitler and/or deserved to be hung, and all those millions and millions of uncivil backwards 'rednecks' and 'right-wing Christians'... puke.

Here's a response I gave months ago to Autonomous Mind on his web site when he was railing against the Obama administration (and "America") about the administration's view of your relationship with the EU...

I'm American and agree very much with Autonomous Mind. But this sentiment by the Barack Obama administration should not be a surprise and I'm really wondering... We conservative/libertarian and in favor of Brit sovereignty and independence are constantly degraded as inferior by your popular press and many citizens at large - a majority wanting a leftist pro-statist American president and government here. It's easy to conclude very little "America" does will be looked upon favorably by present day Great Britain, a generation befitting Great Victim with respect to this side of the Atlantic.

He didn't respond to me directly nor did the other Brit posters, but in a latter post in the thread he did make it known respectful recognition of Americans.

It's a present day reality that's disturbed even agitated me Teddy. Most Americans and Brits are pretty much the same and every day here I watch both on the same set in various tv programing. But peel it back and the 'special' relationship is indeed long gone. As I commented here before even at Conhome a substantial percentage of the members wanted the reelection of Barack Obama and had no problem looking down on that which is conservative America.

So, in a nutshell, I can't stand our president, vice president and all those like-minded Democrats and leftists here. You know were I could wish they would go! But when Brits find disapproval and a heck of a lot more than reality deserves, I find it hard to relate.

[Teddy Bear]

Just so you are clear with regard to me Steevo, I have lived in the States for about 6 years in total from as far back as the late 60's. There are many great things about the country and people, and there are many things that are negative, same like we have here. The values of both societies are similar, though the means to attain them are somewhat different.

I can understand the impression you have can only mostly come from the way the media here reports on events there. That does not make it even the populist view, as since the majority of journalists tend to be left wing, they view and relate to things from that perspective. Don't take that as the reality on the ground.

If you pick a particular article that I link to from the Telegraph, Daily Mail, or Spectator, and read the comments below the article you will the real views expressed by the majority of people. The Guardian has been likened to the print version of the BBC, yet if you Google the circulation figures for it as compared to the others I mentioned, you will see only a minority read it. Even that figure is composed of BBC staff using it as their bible, without which it would collapse.

What I'm trying to say is I can understand your perception of what people here think of the States, but trust me, only a small minority of ignorant souls really think that way

Same like you have in the States about us, except since far fewer travel abroad, you are more at the mercy of your left-wing media.

[steevo]

It's a very touchy issue but every so often it may come up. I know you're not anti-American but the 60s is very different than now. To a point in general I agree but it's limited. I think clearly we would disagree on some deep perception, feelings and judgment. And enough said for me here, thanks for your time.

[Teddy Bear]

I was last there in 2002, and I have 2 sisters who live there.
I can't say I really understand what exactly from this article sparked off something inside you. If anything it shows that people are not taken in by everything the BBC tries to inculcate. Enough people here watch American shows to have their own perceptions about America and its culture. I think it's great that people can really see through the hype and see what Obama is really about.

I think it's Obama that fails to understand true American values.

[steevo]

Like I said it's touchy for me. What sparked if off is the hypocrisy. More Brits than Americans wanted Obama in the 1st election and it appears even the 2nd. In spite of how much better informed so many there like to think of themselves they need to unlearn years of stereotyping and degraded characterization toward American conservatives, and stop thinking they are the enlightened concerning values, ideology and politics. So, what's the surprise? He's talked down to you once too often? A big centralized control arrogant authoritarian wanting to be the man, and in agreement with other world elites so inclined... who would've thought.

And to clarify my response to your sharing experience here in the 60s, I can appreciate why you did. What I meant is that era is not like today's for our relationship that's all. I wouldn't be here if there was the slightest question in my mind you looked at this side of the Atlantic in superiority. There is no need for you to explain Teddy and my apologies for not making that clear.

[Teddy Bear]

I appreciate you getting more 'off your chest' Steevo.
I'll give you my perception of it from this side of the pond.
After 9/11 Bush launched his 'war on militant Islam'. I won't go in to the details now though I have covered it in part elsewhere on the site. Suffice it to say I wholeheartedly agreed with what he was trying to do. It was clear he was getting very informed advice about what was going on in that world, and that there was little else to do sensibly but to confront it.

Unfortunately he was not an erudite man, and in the face of a lot of dissent about his decision he did not have the skills to deal with it. So it was easy for those on the sidelines, especially the media to make a fool of him. The very fact that he lasted 2 terms is credit to all those who could see what he really represented, though it's understandable that in the face of all the criticism he was getting he began to change tack to try and appease the opposition. This was made to appear that he was even more of a fool, and gave the left a foot in the door.

I think Americans were sensitive to the criticism they were getting around the world, and wanting to be liked, this set the stage for Obama to get in. While the left continue to champion him, as people become more and more aware of the issues going on in the world, and his failures in dealing with them, they are looking elsewhere.

The fact that there are many ignorant people in the world, who are easily led, is no surprise to either of us. but as they become more and more affected by these issues, and need to find solutions they begin to start looking deeper for themselves and working out what's what. It's early days yet, and things will get worse before they get better. I think it's important to understand the dynamics to see what the 'reality' truly is.

There's a line from Rudyard Kipling's IF that is pertinent here:
'If you can keep your head, when all about you are losing theirs, and blaming it on you.
If you can trust yourself, when all men doubt you, yet make allowance for their doubting too...'

Make allowance for the doubting - in the present time

[steevo]

I was not in agreement to remove Saddam. But once in I knew we had to finish the immediate war and complete the 'nation-building' until they were ready for us to leave. I never want us to be so deluded again, but like you respect the noble intent.

He actually is erudite, very much but not in public and he knows that very much. I say this because I've watched him in personal interviews since with a lot of questions and he is quick and well aware of what and why he believes. Surprised me. A different man.

I think you have your finger on a lot. Very sensitive, obviously reading beyond perception largely generated by left-wing media.

Wish I had your ultimate optimism

[Teddy Bear]

I believe I posted somewhere on this site my reasons for seeing the Iraq war as justified, though nothing to do with the public justification given at the time. and for very good reason. Anyway, as it happens I posted a comment on this elsewhere a few weeks ago, and this si what I wrote:

I did and still do support the invasion of Iraq, the only pity is it stopped where it did.

The problem for most people to understand the justification for it is that the media has gone to great lengths to avoid bringing those issues to the table that showed why it was right. If anything, the media stopped our forces going as far as it needed to in putting down the threat to our society that daily further encroaches on our lives.

First I would suggest that people read the book ' The High Cost of Peace' by Yossef Bodansky. He was the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, as well as director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association and a senior editor for the Defense and Foreign Affairs group of publications. The author of eight books on international terrorism and global crises, a former senior consultant for the US Depts. of Defense and State. He also predicted and wrote about 9/11 before it happened, by observing what was going on within the Islamic world.

He shows in this book how Clinton's zeal for peace was motivated by his desire to divert national attention away from his domestic scandals, and why his administration completely ignored the growing threat of militant Islamism. Also, what secret preparations Saddam ordered for the next war with, and terrorist strikes against, the United States and Israel. Saddam wasn't the only leader within the Muslim world who was vying to be 'the supreme leader', but he had his hands on the reins. Taking out Saddam wasn't only about getting rid of this direct threat, but also to send a message to the rest of them. We saw how Gaddafi, for example, immediately became a good boy once he saw what was happening to Saddam.

The problem began with our media laying the focus on WMD as the necessary justification instead of what can still be deemed a weapon of mass destruction that lies within the Islamic mindset. Even today, following over 20,400 deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11, the ambitions of the Islamists have still not been properly identified by our media, and counter measures put into place. The problem for Bush and Blair in spelling out the real reasons for taking out Saddam was to allow the other regimes with similar ambitions to back down, like Gaddafi. If they would have stated that this was the purpose of the war, it would have been more likely to have them dig in their heels, rather than make themselves look weak in front of their followers. But this made it impossible to publicly ridicule the premise that the only legitimate purpose of the war was to get rid of WMD.

Clinton knew that the media would attack him if he would have chosen to counter the forces of Islam the way Bush did, which is why he preferred to appease them, sending them billions, and only serving to empower and embolden them further. It's a pity that our media made it impossible for Bush to finish the job, as in the long run for us to take control it will cost a lot more lives on all sides. Blair was not initially a proponent of war, and was making the same sort of noises as France and Germany. Then one weekend in the run up to the invasion, Bush had him come to Camp David for an 'education' on what was really going on in the world. When he returned, he was a 'convert'.

I had no doubt that Bush had good motive to do what he did, and didn't think he was unintelligent, as the media wanted to portray him. But he left a lot to be desired as a public speaker in the role of the most powerful man on the planet. I'm quite sure he faced a lot of pressure from within the ranks for the flak they were getting. The strategy he was employing was simply too intelligent for most others to deal with, and get behind.

I've no doubt that time will prove him right.

Have a good Easter Steevo

[steevo]

Happy Easter to you too my friend