Headlines for your friends.

Now CNN is not, I think you will agree, the scourge of the liberal establishment- yet they know how to frame headlines (and indeed articles) as a matter of course that don't confer an unwarranted respectability on the subject of the article, that don't show that institutional regard that one pillar of the liberal orthodoxy has for another.

The BBC is different. Institutional in such a way that they may determine the qualifications for institutionality, they can say 'Clinton due to open his library', and we all say, 'of course, Clinton's Library- what could be more proper than to mark its opening with an official ceremony and a party led by the likes of Bono and The Edge?' (of whose involvement the BBC religiously informs us).

CNN don't mention Bono or The Edge (the BBC there seemingly doing their bit for intra-U2 equality). Instead they major on the different reactions of the public to Clinton's portentious statement.

No, we don't just get Clinton's whine that people didn't focus on what he did in government (he should count himself lucky they got distracted by what he did, so to speak, on the side), we also get partisan supporters who look absurd: '"We had to show this was a systematic attempt by Republican leaders to de-legitimize Bill Clinton and the administration," said former Clinton adviser Bruce Lindsey'. IN otheer words, we get to know that this is a rankly partisan attempt to shape or possibly reshape, the way history is seen. Good luck to them- they'll need it.

The BBC, by contrast, sound like the tourist guide- who designed it, who opened it, what's inside, and what Bill thinks of it. Ok, ok, ok, Beebies- what I want to know is, 'what's going on here?' You always pride yourselves in reading between the lines of the VRWC, so what's with Clinton's Library that you might as well be quoting admission prices?

But, anyway, to move on- how's about that other grossly fat sacred cow, the UN? How comes it that CNN can rightly entitle their piece 'Rare U.N. meeting on Sudan', whereas the BBC proudly declare : 'Sudan conflict under UN spotlight' .

In other words, 'never fear, the UN are here' versus 'about time too and shouldn't we have done this last year?'

A)Which is closer to the truth? B)Which shows an attachment to the way things are that betrays them as pure establishment?

"Well, Britain gave its support, but I did not see much in return."-

Jacques Chirac (presumably speaking in French or demonstrating his ignorance of the subtleties of English tenses) referring, as is his wont, to Iraq.

Alas, I'm pretty sure it's not only English tenses that Jacques is ignorant of- it's also the extent of his own isolation.

Let's assume for a moment that Britain hadn't backed the US. That could have severed us from much more loyal friends, like Australia for instance, not to mention the States themselves. Why would we want to do that? For a cold French shoulder to cry on, as usual? Of course the US might have delayed longer without Britain, but alternatively they might have gone sooner, since it was TB who played the friendship card to force an attempt to placate the same UN that had been (we now know) infiltrated so badly by the wishes of the Iraqi despot through Oil-for-Food. Had the US gone in sooner, the success might have been more complete, including such things as WMD stockpiles as a bonus. Still, despite our hesitation, it was the right course of action, and we can retain close ties with two newly re-elected Anglospheric leaders for some years as a result. It's also the case that much of Europe was closer in spirit to the UK position than to that of the French- as was witnessed by their inability to remain silent.

So, Chirac's wrong. We've retained more than we've lost by the Iraq invasion, even in narrowly diplomatic terms- let alone the longer term fruits of democratic change, or change anyway, in the Middle East.

But of course it was right anyway to support and facilitate the ousting of Saddam Hussein, terrorist sugar daddy and inveterate plotter against the UK and US, whose regime was always personal in pursuing its vendettas, and cunning to boot.

Meanwhile, Roger Simon follows another hypothesis.

Bigger than you thought: that's UNScam, not Lord Black's alleged misdemeanours; though to look at the BBC's website you'd think Lord Black's champagne lifestyle the only 'fraud' going. It would be so much more a mark of a serious broadcaster were those priorities to be reversed

The BBC, true to their personality obsession, are more concerned with Colin Powell's significance (which has always fascinated them) than with the significance of Saddam's illicit billions. The protectiveness such selectivity shows towards Galloway and the French in particular is touching. One for all and all for one. Galloway, incidentally, happens still to be pursuing the Telegraph in the courts. I wonder if there is a theme emerging here.