Clare Short (commenting on the villification of the BBC): "It's all part of a distraction from the real issues: How did we get to war in Iraq?"
Lindsay Tanner (commenting on the villification of the ABC): "Senator Alston should apologise and get back to tackling the big issues in his portfolio instead of pursuing this vindictive war against the ABC"
Rod Speed wrote:
B J Foster wrote in
> message news: snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com...
>
>
>>"In the report, the BBC said Britain's intelligence services
>
>
> Terminally stupid posturing claim. There is no way
> that the BBC could ever have known that, whatever
> Kelly might or might not have claimed to them.
>
>
>>were concerned that Blair aides had 'sexed up'
>>claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
>>in a dossier justifying the case for war.
>
>
>>Gerald Kaufman, a member of Parliament
>>from Blair's Labor Party, accused the BBC
>>of engaging in 'tabloid' journalism
>
>
> Corse they did, even if Kelly had claimed that to them.
>
>
>>and called for a review of the publicly
>>financed corporation's status.
>
>
>>The BBC...has also come under fire from critics
>>in the United States, where some conservatives
>>accuse it of a leftist, anti-Israel bias.
>
>
> Corse they are biased.
>
>
>>Gilligan, the BBC reporter, is standing by his story.
>
>
> Completely irrelevant. Its obvious to anyone
> with a clue that Kelly was never in any position
> to be able to say anything about what "Britain's
> intelligence services" believed about anything.
>
>
>>'I want to make it clear that I did not misquote
>>or misrepresent Dr. David Kelly', Gilligan said.
>
>
> Easy to claim now. And it was a stupid claim to make anyway.
> Kelly was never in any position to be able to say anything
> about what "Britain's intelligence services" believed about anything. > >
>>Blair's critics want questions over the government's case
>>for war answered through an independent, public inquiry,
>
>
> Who cares ?
>
>
>>and are calling for Hutton's investigation to take the broadest
>>possible look at Kelly's death and the events that led up to it. > >
> Who cares ?
>
>
>>Clare Short,
>
>
> Terminally woolly minded fool...
>
>
>>who recently resigned from Blair's cabinet, where
>>she had been the international development secretary,
>>said the attack on the BBC was misplaced.
>
>
> Who cares what that terminally woolly minded fool said ?
>
>
>>'It's all part of a distraction from the real issues:
>>How did we get to war in Iraq?' Short told BBC radio.
>
>
> Pathetic, really.
>
>
>>In another radio interview, a member of Parliament from the
>>opposition Conservative Party, Oliver Letwin, echoed that concern. > >
> Who cares ?
>
>
>>'While there certainly does need to be an inquiry into the
>>circumstances surrounding Dr. Kelly's death', Letwin said,
>>'there are a very large number of questions which all center
>>on the issue of whether the public can trust what the
>>government tells it and which relate to the information given
>>to Parliament and the public during the lead-up to war in Iraq'". > >
> Hardly surprising that a member of the opposition
> would attempt that sort of mindless stuff, stupid.
>
>
>>formatting link>
>
> yawn
>
>
>
>>B J Foster wrote:
>>
>>>"Governors back BBC in row over Iraq dossier
>>>...
>>>The BBC's governors sought to gain the upper hand in the Iraq war
>>>dossier row last night with a pugilistic statement demanding that
>>>Downing Street retract its claims of bias against the corporation's >>>journalism.
>>>
>>>After two weeks in which the BBC has appeared to be on the back foot,
>>>the corporation's governing body turned the tables on No 10 and
>>>delivered an unexpectedly robust defence of the story at the centre of
>>>the dispute.
>>>
>>>Hours before the foreign affairs select committee is due to publish its
>>>report on the affair, the governors maintained it was 'in the public
>>>interest' to report the claim by an intelligence source that Downing
>>>Street exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. >>>
>>>In a Guardian interview today, the former Commons leader Robin Cook
>>>makes a withering attack on Tony Blair's credibility, and says the key
>>>dossier justifying war was inaccurate.
>>>
>>>He accuses Alastair Campbell, director of communications at Downing
>>>Street, of using his row with the BBC as a 'red herring' to distract
>>>attention from the real issues".
>>>formatting link>>> >>>Anyone see any resemblance here? >>>
>>>
>>>B J Foster wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"ABC review rubbishes claims of war bias
>>>>...
>>>>The ABC's complaints review arm has rejected Federal Government
>>>>allegations of widespread bias in its coverage of the Iraq war,
>>>>finding no evidence of systemic anti-Americanism.
>>>>...
>>>>Labor's communications spokesman, Lindsay Tanner, said: 'Senator
>>>>Alston should apologise and get back to tackling the big issues in his
>>>>portfolio instead of pursuing this vindictive war against the ABC'".
>>>>formatting link>>>> >>>>KP would probably agree. >>>>
>>>>Then there's that half-pregnant underachieving monopoly telco, the
>>>>drag on rollout of new technologies like digital TV and broadband, the
>>>>exporting of jobs to India, the halt to capital investment because
>>>>analysts say Telstra is a "utility", the directories monopoly. It goes
>>>>on and on.
>>>>
>>>>But never mind, just roll out a spanking new fibre network in Tassie
>>>>and everyone will be onside again.
>>>>
>>>
>
>