We should war, war, war... on hype and the liars who use it.

Highlight of the week, for me, was Don Rumsfeld telling a Senate committee the bottom line about public opinion and Iraq. He was responding to one of the few sane members, Joe Lieberman:

'Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, also questioned whether the US public was tiring of the war. “I feel that American public opinion is tipping away from this effort,” said Mr Lieberman. “[The insurgents] will only defeat us on the field of American public opinion.”

Mr Rumsfeld replied: “You sense the American people are tipping away from support. I have a feeling they're getting pushed.”'

The only thing that I would add to that is that there's no 'feeling' about it. It's the reality.

So, as the Democrats carefully orchestrate their attacks, and the media, in sympathy largely, orchestrate theirs, so the fascist Islamists in Iraq orchestrate theirs. When I talk about 'orchestrate', I mean that the whole tempo and targeting strategy of the fascists is dictated by their awareness that the battle is to be won or lost through the media. Such rhyme or reason as there is in the so-called 'insurgency' can only be gleaned from a careful reading of what the media considers newsworthy in the way of exploring the media-perceived weaknesses of the Bush administration over Iraq. Such a relationship is complex, like an orchestra where musicians and conductor are interchangeable. One moment one person creates an expectation which another fulfils, the next the roles reverse. You could call it symbiosis. I'd prefer to settle on 'pandemonium'- I mean in the original sense. More about that original sense from me here.

The Balfour column is up- and exceptionally fine it is too. I know you'll want to read his take on the Israel/Palestine issue.

Of course I didn't know whether they did, but I hoped that when United Nations' Inspectors, according to the BBC, said that the US was '"not willing to co-operate with the United Nations human rights machinery"' over Guantanmo Bay, they didn't mean the same 'machinery' of which Koffi Annan said this:

'"Unless we re-make our human rights machinery, we may be unable to renew public confidence in the United Nations itself,"'

But since the Beeb didn't bother to inform us of the origins of these 'inspectors', how could I know that they weren't the honorable representatives of Sudan or Zimbabwe, China or Saudi Arabia? It seems public confidence isn't part of the BBC's business.

As it happened when I followed up the BBC's reporting I found that the inspectors are from 'Algeria, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, Argentina and Egypt'- so not any of the above that sprang to my mind.

...But hang on, wasn't that a list that included the Egypt that people have complained the US sends alleged terrorists to for extra portions of torture? And why were they accused of that except because of the poor human rights record of Egypt?

That's the rationality of the UN at work, which the BBC just treats as an anti-US merry-go-round. Spin, spin, spin- till we're so dizzy we fall off.

Hitch is great on the Downing Street memos. The BBC isn't.

One of the greats, Paul Johnson, has a marvellous analysis in Commentary Magazine of what he calls the disease of anti-Semitism, and some of the most level-headed understandings of Hitler you'll find anywhere.(via R.C.P)