BBC grants softest of interviews to Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton is in London to promote his new book on Giving. He has given interviews to the BBC and The Guardian newspaper.

He tells the BBC that he’d be the happiest person on Earth if his wife won the Presidency next year.

Asked why anti-Americanism is so strong at the moment, Bill Clinton said the Bush administration “squandered” the goodwill that America received after 9/11. He highlighted…

…the “failure” to allow the UN inspectors to finish their job in Iraq

...the withdrawal from Kyoto,

…the withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty,

…walking away from the non-proliferation movement,

…getting out of the International Criminal Court,

…stopping military aid to Latin America.

We went on a go-it-alone, ‘our way or the highway’ course, the former President continued, that has alienated much of the world. Much of President Bush’s own party, he said, do not agree with this approach. Grassroots citizens across America have never been more interested in foreign affairs, he said, and restoring America’s standing in the world. There is a great awareness that no country can solve any major problem on its own.

Bill Clinton’s BBC interviewer John Humphrys was recently described as a “superior Brit” and “extreme Leftist” by former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Humphrys has a reputation for being a tough interrogator but, incredibly unusually, he did not interrupt Bill Clinton or pose any hard questions. A good interviewer would have asked Bill Clinton about the failure of the multilateral institutions he so admires to do anything about Rwanda, Darfur or Burma. A fair interviewer would have questioned whether the Democrats’ deepening protectionism would do anything to restore American standing or its support for quitting Iraq with the work unfinished. A robust interviewer would have quizzed Bill Clinton about the unchecked growth of al-Qaeda whilst he was sat in the Oval Office.

Bill Clinton tells The Guardian that Hillary Clinton, favourite to become America’s next President has given him the job of helping to restore America's standing in the world. He’ll be charged with telling the world that:

“America was open for business and cooperation again after eight years marked by unilateralist policies that have "enrage[d] the world".

Reasons why American Democrats may struggle to tackle anti-Americanism are listed here.

Clinton praised Gordon Brown for his “exemplary” handling of the economy. He described him as an "intelligent, disciplined, profoundly concerned person". He said that David Cameron is an “interesting fellow” who he’d like to meet:

"He is very well-spoken and that is about all I know, because I haven't had the chance to meet him or study the back-and-forth of where they are on the issues. He is a good presence for the Conservative Party, but that's about all I know."

Listen to the full BBC interview here and read The Guardian interview here

Related link: Biased BBC invading America video.

Comments

[John Coles]

Are we supposed to admire this squalid libertine? He didn't have the spine to take out Bin Laden, too busy debauching a silly girl young enough to be his daughter.

[Tony Makara]

A Hillary Clinton presidency will be a Bill Clinton presidency. You can bet your life on that. Bill Clinton has become something of a celebrity with his laid-back style and is quite a contrast compared to Jimmy Carter who always gives a serious interview. Bill Clinton described compassionate Conservatism as a myth, he did so at a Labour conference. So don't expect anything remotely Conservative from a Clintons presidency. As for the BBC, well do we really expect anything different?

[steve]

Let me guess. You'd be accusing the BBC of anti-americanism if the interview was agressive. One of you must have told Bolton to slag off the BBC... I doubt he gives a toss.

[Niallster]

One of the many many lies told about Bush by Bubba the Al BBC and others is that HE withdrew from Kyoto. He never got to withdraw from Kyoto as the US was never in it. The Senate vote on rejecting the treaty was 95 to 0 with for example John Kerry voting against. I attach a copy of the Senate roll call concerned.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session

Vote Date: July 25, 1997, 11:37 AM

Question: On the Resolution (s.res.98 )

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

YEAs 95
NAYs 0
Not Voting 5

Kerry (D-MA), Yea

[JF]

Have there been any recent polls to determine the popularity of the BBC or possible support for abolishing the license fee?

[Uncle Albert]

steve - isn't he that fat guy from 'Little Britain'?

Yeah, who 'gives a toss' mate? You're the ones paying Humphrys' wages while he does his public Monica imitations, 'to our richest horror' in the rest of the world, as the poet said.

[Cosmo]

What a racket.

Global media, especially the BBC, present a one-note narrative of ceaseless American venality and wickedness, then present the manufactured animus of their audiences as 'proof' of American guilt, blaming Americans for the willingness of others around the world to believe the worst about them. The volume and ferocity was simply turned up after the 2000 election.

The message of this crude shakedown is clear: We'll stop ginning up hatred and bellowing at you when you Americans elect leaders more easily seduced by oily European diplomats, more easily conned by third world and UN charlatans, and more easily intimidated by totalitarian gangsters posing as statesmen.

Of course, this sort of bullying and Bubba's bogus talking points work well well with insecure Americans who think it's more important to be well-liked than to do what one believes is right.

That Clinton repeatedly curries favor with those outside his country who'll help him against domestic political enemies tells you a lot about his character -- as if he hasn't provided ample evidence already.

[Blair Radford]

I was shocked at what a massive let off for Clinton this was. More important it showed how Brown is on the ropes already. To get the BBC to spin that interview and let Clinton give his backing to Brown was typical of how the BBC and Labour work, but it backed fired again ! If Brown thinks that getting the thumbs up, pat on the back routine from Clinton is praise indeed he is welcome! Who wants an ex president with Clinton's track record saying well done!
Excellent! Another Labour Young Turks own goal and fantastic to behold. I was laughing out aloud by the end of the interview.

[MarkJ]

Bubba has always been the guy who says, "Aw darlin', I'll never lie to you. Of course I'll respect you in the morning."

Hillary has always been the gal who says, "I hope you enjoyed your five minutes of fun, you selfish bastard. Now take out the trash."

Truly a marriage made in Hell. I pray to Almighty God we won't be inflicted with four more years of Clintonism come January 2009. I'm not sure our Republic will survive it.

[F]

Cosmo has it perfectly right: the worst example of American venality, selfishness and dishonesty is somehow seen as a source of honest analysis of US and world events. Bill Clinton is smart, but more importantly he is glib and he quickly senses what his interlocutor wants to hear, then feeds that with partial honesty. Partial honesty is the most insidious of all techniques -- an outright lie is quickly debunked but a lie with an element of truth is harder to recognize and set right. For Clinton to say that Bush pulled out of Kyoto when he himself was in office at the time is an excellent example of the partial lie -- and BBC didn't even bother setting the record straight. We'll be seeing a lot more of this in the coming months, and I predict Bill will get away with a lot more lies that a fawning press will not bother to investigate or even question. Bill Clinton, ambassador to the world, will be perfectly situated to rewrite the parts of foreign policy history that he is not proud of from his own eight years. Eager to see Hillary elected? You bet. I wonder what her Secretary of State will think of his poking around, though. F

[F]

Cosmo has it perfectly right: the worst example of American venality, selfishness and dishonesty is somehow seen as a source of honest analysis of US and world events. Bill Clinton is smart, but more importantly he is glib and he quickly senses what his interlocutor wants to hear, then feeds that with partial honesty. Partial honesty is the most insidious of all techniques -- an outright lie is quickly debunked but a lie with an element of truth is harder to recognize and set right. For Clinton to say that Bush pulled out of Kyoto when he himself was in office at the time is an excellent example of the partial lie -- and BBC didn't even bother setting the record straight. We'll be seeing a lot more of this in the coming months, and I predict Bill will get away with a lot more lies that a fawning press will not bother to investigate or even question. Bill Clinton, ambassador to the world, will be perfectly situated to rewrite the parts of foreign policy history that he is not proud of from his own eight years. Eager to see Hillary elected? You bet. I wonder what her Secretary of State will think of his poking around, though. F

[Maduka]

We keep on complaining about the BBC (rightly?), but what is our response?

The BBC is good at what it does. It is the single most influential news organisation in the World.

If the conservative view is to be heard around the World, a rival to BBC is needed (and it is not Fox News).

So what do the conservatives do?

[Tony Makara]

What we need over here is a UK version of Rush Limbaugh. Someone who can throw a few hand grenades at the Liberal establishment. Anyone in the UK who wants to listen to Rush Limbaugh can catch him every 1700hrs UK time on WTIC. Here is the URl:

http://www.wtic.com/

[Andy]

"The BBC is good at what it does."

That is to say it's good at presenting rumours, hearsay, opinions, speculation and reporters talking to other reporters, but not nearly enough in the way of impartial and verifiable facts.

"It is the single most influential news organisation in the World."

Is it? If so will it always be this way? Look at www.barb.co.uk and see that viewing figures for BBC1/2 have steadily declined by approx. 14% over the previous decade, and will probably continue to do so as increasing numbers turn to the net for alternative sources of information.

The BBC doesn't really need a rival, just improve its reporting.

[Maduka]

Andy,

There is no doubt that the BBC has a liberal bias, but no News organisation has the reach and experience that the BBC has. There are BBC news services in Pashto, Urdu, Arabic, Hausa, Swahili, Spanish and scores of other languages.

The BBC may not see the British as its only (or prime) audience.

(From my experience in Africa), Illiterate African farmers listen to the BBC Hausa and Swahili services. The BBC is a unique cultural asset, and it is a shame that America has nothing to rival it.

Tony Makara,

Britain does not need a Rush Limbaugh (or a Bill O'reilly or a Sean Hannity). It is not the British style. Limbaugh, O'reilly and Hannity will be torn to pieces. Nothing pisses off an Englishman as much a lack of politeness.

[Maduka]

Andy,

To honest, even Sky news (owned by Rupert Murdoch) does not seem to be supportive of US policy (especially in Iraq). The same applies to ITV, the Daily Mail and Channel 4.

So the problem may not lie with the BBC.

Many British people do not hate the Republican party, they hate George Bush. Whether this hatred is rational or not, I don't know, but it is real.

[Andy]

Maduka,

Good points. I neglected to mention that for the examples you cited and others the BBC deserves praise. You are also correct in that it's not just the BBC - they all seem to do it.

However, if Sky for example offered what the BBC currently offers for £130 per year I wouldn't subscribe. I suppose that's why the government need to pressgang me into paying. Not a laudable state of affairs.

[Andy]

"To honest, even Sky news (owned by Rupert Murdoch) does not seem to be supportive of US policy (especially in Iraq). "

Sky I think is much more fair-minded than the BBC in terms of representing different views and employing journalists who hold them. They do not seem hide news like the deceitful BBC does.

The BBC is becoming more like state-controlled media in third-world countries, producing woefully uneducated rubbish in order to keep the population in ignorant subservience to socialist ideals. This is mass hypnotism.

I can't remember when I last watched anything on the BBC that made me think here was someone with sound background knowledge of the subject and an objective approach to dealing with that subject. It appears the only criterion the BBC use when employing someone is whether he/she is solidly on the left and PC.

As long as it continues employing ignorant people with narrow ideologies, the BBC will continue to produce crap.

[Maduka]

Andy,

The BBC is not the only institution in Britain that is firmly on the left, the Church of England is on the Left and so is the University Community.

We also forget that Britain is a country that once nationalised its railways and motor industry. This is the nation of Tony Benn, Niel Kinnock and Scargill. Britain is quite socialist.

(I lived in Leeds, Yorkshire and I've been to Scotland). Infact, the only real 'capitalist' part of Britain is The City.

[Bill Moore]

Britain does not need a Rush Limbaugh (or a Bill O'reilly or a Sean Hannity). It is not the British style. Limbaugh, O'reilly and Hannity will be torn to pieces. Nothing pisses off an Englishman as much a lack of politeness.

I dunno, obviously someone forgot to tell Jeremy Paxman and Clarkson this ;) Perhaps it's best to say Britain doesn't mind you being rude as long as you're funny too, or at least only rude to politicians and other idiots...

I've got to admit from a British point of view I tend to find Hannity and Limbaugh unbearably self-important and pompous, even when they're obviously right. I don't mind O'Reilly, but just wish he'd stop mistaking shouting at people for incisive interviewing. At least he has a sense of humour, err, humor and that can allow you to get away with much more in Britain.

The problem with the BBC is that it recruits from far too narrow a pool of talent, specifically liberal arts graduates (i.e. "Media Guardian"). If it spent half the time it does on ensuring specious ethnic "diversity" these days on obtaining real political diversity then it might get somewhere...

[Maduka]

Bill,

Paxman is obviously full of himself. I can let Clarkson get away with murder - as he long as he keeps presenting Top Gear.

[Andy]

Maduka

"Britain is quite socialist"

I think used to be quite socialist would be more accurate. It's been a number of decades since UK taxpayers had to prop up ailing nationalized industries like British Leyland / Steel / Coal etc. The British Government now owns very few industries, the Royal Mail being the only one I can think of.

It is true that UK has produced its fair share of Leftist firebrands: Benn, Kinnock ("The Welsh Windbag"), Scargill, Mick McGahey, Galloway. All are/were very vociferous and vocal as many on the Left are, but do/did not represent the UK as a whole. Scargill has twice stood for Parliament, losing both times, gaining just 2.4% of the vote in the Hartlepool election.

[mamapajamas]

Maduka, re: "Britain does not need a Rush Limbaugh (or a Bill O'reilly or a Sean Hannity). It is not the British style. Limbaugh, O'reilly and Hannity will be torn to pieces. Nothing pisses off an Englishman as much a lack of politeness."

Actually, in US terms Limbaugh and Hannity are DAMNED POLITE compared to the left wingers in talk radio.

Now, I don't view the need for a British verion of Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly as a need for someone exactly like them, but rather people who could do the same job on British terms.

The other side NEEDS a platform. Otherwise, free speech is dead there.

[atheling]

mamapajamas:

"Actually, in US terms Limbaugh and Hannity are DAMNED POLITE compared to the left wingers in talk radio."

I'll say. Left wingers don't even ALLOW dissenting opinions. Case in point: Columbia University, where Leftist students stormed the podium and prevented the Minutemen to give a talk on the problems with illegals crossing the border. Also, I recall Leftist students attempting to throw pies at Anne Coulter when she tried to speak at a university.

Lefties are speech fascists. They do not permit freedom of speech, and we see that in Europe, particularly in Brussels where the anti-Islamization protesters were attacked and arrested by police for peacefully demonstrating.

1984 is now.

[mamapajamas]

Atheling, re: "...particularly in Brussels where the anti-Islamization protesters were attacked and arrested by police for peacefully demonstrating."

And this is the most peculiar situation I've ever seen in Europe (at least in my lifetime). In the US, "free speech" is something you already have which the government isn't allowed to interfere with. In Brussels, at least, the government decides which speech will be free and which won't. The attacks and arrests at that demonstration were an example of DIRECT government interference. The reason given, that it might annoy Muslims, is an outrage.

Strange... demonstrations used to be all about exposing and annoying the target of the demonstration. If the government is allowed to decide which speech should be free, how is speech free?

So what's happening in the EU?