Prospects for Thursday 11th September
With prospects for tonight's special programme called 'Beyond the War on Terror', here is today's output editor Shaminder.
Hello everyone,
We are producing a special programme tonight called "Beyond the War on Terror". We are building this around Mark Urban's interview with General Petraeus in Baghdad, and two films he has done, which ask - is it in any way possible for America to say it has won the war on terror, and how will the fight against terrorism be re-focussed beyond the Bush presidency. There's still a lot for us to do on the day, so let's really try and make this sparkling.
Yours,
Shaminder
Comment number 1.
At 11th Sep 2008, barriesingleton wrote:SPARKLING WAR LEAVES ME FLAT
All my worst fears of Newsnight confirmed. Shaminder and I have a completely different approach to war. But then I spent a lifetime in science and watched the cleverness of the war-scientist magnify the devastation and death toll. (Not to mention bombs, fear and evacuation, in early life.)
It would seem that, under the Newsnight ethos, the first casualty of war is gravitas.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 11th Sep 2008, bookhimdano wrote:1. 'More Money for Us' does that quip reflect the true thoughts of the foreign multinationals? That the uk energy market is a big joke by international standards. Backslapping all round?
2.Israeli minister suggested his country could kidnap Iran's president.
3.A critical report on the conduct of the police and MI5 in the run-up to the July 7 attacks on London has been shelved.
...is it in any way possible for America to say it has won the war on terror...
where's bin ladin? whose bankrupt who?
As for buying into the neocon language which reflects a disturbed psychology ' :war on terror, axis of evil, golden souls, provides fantasies. Will the neocons ever win against their self created fantasies or is fighting all that counts?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 11th Sep 2008, thegangofone wrote:For the War on Terror and the war in Afghanistan to progress there needs to be progress in Pakistan. For that to happen I would assume stability may be reduced. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Therefore how great is the risk of a change in strategy in Pakistan post-Bush? Personally I think we have to go down that road whatever the risk but it would be interesting to know.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 11th Sep 2008, JadedJean wrote:"He confirmed that 鈥渨ar on terror鈥 鈥 strongly associated with Mr Blair and US President George Bush 鈥 .
So this is the new, improved, 'Para War on Terror' then is it? I thought our PM had put all that Blairish evil-dooers-to-Israel's and the USA's interests behind him and said the perpetrators should be referred to as 'criminals'? With now safely in the PPP's hands, and Iran being next door, has all that now gone by the board?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 11th Sep 2008, JadedJean wrote:missing link.......and Iran , has all that now gone by the board?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11th Sep 2008, Neil Robertson wrote:Hope Mark Urban remembered to ask Gen
Patraeus what he meant by "Don't put lipstick on pigs" in one strategy document
produced by the MNF-Iraq recently. After
Abu Graid this sounded pretty sick humour.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)