Very Busy Day Today.

However, I did notice the BBC plugging the views of one Sir Lawrence Freedman, rotund University of London academic. It's funny how at times the BBC can fawn so completely at the feet of the enobled. This seems to coincide with those occasions where the BBC's views and those of the enobled coincide.

I googled Sir Lawrence Freedman and ran across this article on the first page. It's predominantly a rank hit piece on Rumsfeld, from The Washington Post in Jan 2005. Talk about a coincidence given the BBC's recent anti-Rumsfeld fest.

How could anybody who read this catalogue of accusations against the Bush administration's Iraq policies ever imagine they would get an honest answer from its author concerning the existence or non-existence of civil war in Iraq? Oh, but I overlook something: it isn't an honest question. It's a BBC question, feeding into and feeding off the agendas of all those who oppose the US.

I notice one BBC excuse for coverage being the Saudi Minister's contradiction of Jack Straw(man) at a recent news conference: 'yes there is civil war in Iraq, blah blah'. It sums things up for me: whatever I may think of the Bush administration they're still making the right enemies.

Update:

Something about the conclusion I've drawn above has been nagging at me; it's not quite right somehow. The trouble is that we're hearing too much from America's enemies, channelled by the gagging for it press. Anyway, regarding Rumsfeld, here is an interesting cross-take on the Freedland/BBC Rumsfeld critique in the Times (via Belmont Club). One more thing strikes me about this 'civil war' season, which has blent nicely with the anti-Rumsfeld coverage, as indeed it has in this posting: they're moving on; the anti-US coalition for the killing, I mean.