A current BBC article made me laugh, for reasons I will explain:

One was that I'm willing to bet that if Israelis were looking for the BBC to cover different aspects of what goes on in Israel other than an Intifada, they would not have put 'organised crime' first on the list. Maybe they would have said 'medical technology', or 'genetic engineering', or even 'Jaffa oranges', or 'polished diamonds', where Israel is prominent- but not 'organised crime'. It's true that the BBC will be able to add this to their statistics for 'non-Intifada/Palestinian Israel issues reported'- useful for informing the next academic study of their 'balance'- but it's a joke, and an unhealthy one at that, as far as reporting 'the other side' of Israeli life is concerned.

But, the Beeb being the Beeb, when they're not arguing that Israel is the oppressor of reasonable Palestinian aspirations they are saying that Israel is the not the smoothly functioning democratic state that 'right wing apologists' asininely say it is.

The second reason I laughed was the irony that when the Beeb describe how 'Israel struggles to keep a lid on crime' they are wilfully ignoring the reality that crime in Israel is not even at an historic high, and is certainly significantly lower than it is in dear old Blighty.

It's lower than it was in 1997, 1998 and 1999 (before the Intifada), and at less than five hundred thousand reported offences per year (including those from which no prosecution follows) amidst a population of 6.7 million, is significantly lower than the rate for England and Wales, which according to latest figures was nearly 5.9 million amidst a population of just over 52 million.

If 'organised' crime is on the rise in Israel, it isn't making a lot of impact on the crime statistics.

The question of whether crime in Israel is 'organised' is also arguable. As the Israeli National Police spokesman Gil Kleiman says, " we do not have organised crime in Israel. We have criminals who are organised." . What he means to do is to rebut the idea that crime in Israel is part of the system- a claim the BBC implicitly makes when it says that

'Organised crime has become a booming industry in Israel in the last decade.'

But, I'm thinking, in the light of the allegations (likely to be dropped for insufficient evidence) against Ariel Sharon, a fair few readers will see a sinister Jewish cabal shining through the prism of the term 'organised crime', with its implications of corruption of authority and international connections. I am reminded that Orla Guerin in a BBC broadcast recently referred to Ariel Sharon as the 'Godfather' of the settler progamme, and Israel's 'strongman'. Coincidence?

I would say in conclusion that there is a story lurking here- equally interesting to Israel's government, Israelis and outsiders. It would be interesting, for instance, to look at how the influx of Jews from Russia (part of a dramatic increase in population) has perhaps included those who have not severed links with the Russian mafia that burgeoned in the 90's, and how the Russian mafia has international connections (such as with Premiership football, for instance- that Arsenal, you just can't trust them!), but the implication that Israel is somehow becoming a sponsor of crime, or that crime there is 'organised' in senses that relate to the governance of Israel, or that it is out of control, are quite simply missing the unambiguous story in search of the anti-Israel slant.

Addendum:

Curiously, I've noticed that in the links from this item there is a BBC investigation into Russian-Jewish mafia connections which provides some of the background for this report. However, it dates from 1998. That investigative report contained the assertion that 'Former police chief Asaf Hefetz says £2.5bn ($4bn) of organised crime money from the former Soviet Union has been invested in Israeli real estate, businesses and banks in the past seven years.'

Bizarrely, the latest article says 'One former Israeli police chief, Asaf Heretz, claimed recently $2.5bn in "dirty money" had been invested in Israel in recent years.'

So 1998 is recent? Or has the claim just been adjusted for inflation and business growth, and reasserted? Or what does the retired police chief know now that he didn't know in '98? What did he know and when did he know it?!

Odd- and just another sidelight on an unsatisfactory article that to my mind needlessly casts doubt on the respectability of Israeli society.

Also, this dramatic news breaks: two BBC journalists shot- one killed- near Saudi capital Riyadh. No word on who did it, but it's no surprise to hear that 'Security sources said the gunmen had escaped'.

I Knew He Would Do It

Much as I would like to leave my little meditation on Reagan and Bush to be my Sunday blogging offering, I was delighted by the news that Ariel Sharon has got his way over the Gaza withdrawal plan.

My delight was only dulled a little by the BBC report, which says that the plan 'implicitly recognised that Israel would retain large parts of the West Bank - and some Palestinian refugees and their descendants who lost their homes when Israel was created would lose the right to return.'

Well, sort-of-yes to the first point, though to point to a failure to get out when the point of the (hard won) plan is to get out is a bit perverse. The second point is beyond the BBC's remit. The 'right to return' depends upon which resolution, treaty or manifesto you are reading from. That the BBC accepts it as a de facto 'right to return' just illustrates which camp they are in. I hope they don't start applying the same logic to the Sudetenland part of the Czech Republic.

BTW: This article on Palestinian tunnels for arms smuggling is, I'm happy to say, the best thing the BBC has done in ages. They must have wanted to mend a fence or two (excuse pun) now that they're under new direction.

Ronald Reagan's death confirms the odd sense that this has been an historic weekend. There was a strange calm I noticed on Friday, and the warm mild air of June in England has made for a soporific, contemplative atmosphere this weekend. What the D-Day commemorations have been doing via the rationalised TV schedules in bringing to mind victory in the struggle against the Nazis, Reagan's death does in recalling victory in the Cold War.


The BBC's 'Have Your Say' page has produced a mix of the good, the average, and, unfortunately, the ugly:

'Yet another republican warmonger. I hope he saw the error of his ways before he died.'
Tom Amos, England'

What caught my eye though was the Beeb preamble, which said that

'He entered the White House with a reputation for having only a vague understanding of foreign affairs, and was deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union - referring to it as "the Evil Empire".'

This is a typical Beeb spin. You might suppose from this that Reagan was deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union because he had only a vague understanding of foreign affairs. You might also suppose that he made the comment about the 'evil empire' as he 'entered the Whitehouse', according with his reputation as a foreign policy novice.

In fact the speech in which Reagan branded the Soviet project 'evil' was made after more than a year in the Whitehouse, on June 8th 1982 to the British House of Commons, and thereafter followed up in other speeches where he used the term 'Evil Empire' that will always be associated with him. It contained a great deal of reflection on foreign policy, and an analysis of the trends behind history. The trouble that the BBC- with its queasy statist mentality- finds, is that Reagan's diagnosis of the troubles of modern history was, and is, unpalatable to it. The speech begins:

'We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention -- totalitarianism.'

Recently GWB also made a dramatic speech, part of a series of speeches, one which was misrepresented by the BBC as a simple comparison between the WoT and WWII. It was in fact a similar sort of speech to the one given by Ronald Reagan- a philosophical scan of history and how the WoT fits into a continuum from the previous century with its plague of totalitarianism. As W. remarks:

'Like other totalitarian movements, the terrorists seek to impose a grim vision in which dissent is crushed, and every man and woman must think and live in colorless conformity. So to the oppressed peoples everywhere, we are offering the great alternative of human liberty.'

and as he also says (my favourite part):

'For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy.'

Fresh from watching Niall Ferguson analysing the decades through his TV documentary summary of his tome 'Collossus' (about the 'rise' and "fall" of the American "Empire"), I feel like I've been in a debate.

He gave three reasons why the US would fail to maintain its power (he scarcely mentioned the WoT with a kind of donnish disdain they drip-feed into the Oxbridge water):

Being too fat ('decadence' was the word he used).

Being Mummy's boys (or, preferring to stay at home rather than live abroad).

Having A.D.D. (or, losing concentration with so many media distractions- Ferguson argued this in a recent Telegraph article, too).

Niall Ferguson's one of the best and most positive British historians, and one of the few who tries to engage with America, and yet this, essentially (I have brutally summarised his fairly brutal summary), was the best he could come up with. It seemed superficial, anecdotal- without any really good anecdotes- and almost wishful (I think I might go back to my Oxbridge water theory over that one). There's been an interesting exchange in the opinion columns of the Telegraph about this seeming wishfulness between Mark Steyn and Ferguson (click a name for an example). Yet if Ferguson's (speaking relatively in the UK context) on the decisive right, what can be expected from the BBC and co. on the obsessively multipolarising left?

He did offer support for the US war against Iraq, but basically because he sees nothing wrong with a Liberal sort of Empire.

On the other hand, when you agree with him it's a lot of fun.

After making clear that he didn't consider France, Russia and Germany as the last word in multilateral diplomacy, he faced the camera squarely, paused for drama, and asked quizzically concerning the Second Iraq war, 'Unilateral (sarcastic pause, chuckle)? I don't think so', which was the highlight for me of a stimulating time.

That Ferguson's regarded as a right-wing historian shows just what a problem Bush and the WoT has been for the left in the UK. On the other hand, he illustrates the fact that politically in Britain we don't (today) have a functioning party that combines a heritage of the principles of humanitarianism, responsible sovereignty and interdependence to deal with the issues that have been raised by the Iraq war. That's why both sides of the political spectrum have been split.

In the US, both sides of the political spectrum can lay claim to it, and as everyone has remarked, if Bush hadn't been for the WoT, many Democrats wouldn't have been against it.

Here's an interesting article from the Policy Review which shows how entrenched the values are that GWB is currently tending to embody, explaining how 'We hold these truth to be self-evident'... and all that, relate to the WoT. I think the effect of that is possibly what Ferguson misunderestinates.

There's nothing like a World War II commemoration to produce a news vacuum- which is how it feels just at the moment. The BBC has been mixed today: they did report several apparent good news stories for the coalition.

A lot of 'hailing' was going on, as the new Iraqi PM, Iyad Allawi, used his first TV broadcast to the nation to 'hail' the coalition and urge Iraqis to support them. Meanwhile the UN's human rights watchdog (for what it's worth) 'hailed' the end of Saddam's regime in Iraq (better late than never, I say).

On the other hand, the Beeb regarded its top headline for the afternoon that protestors had gathered in Rome in large (but dramatically disputed- 25000 if you're a policeman, 150000 if you're a protester) numbers to heckle Mr Bush as Mr Bush was chided by the Pope over the war in Iraq- facts which left me, er, unsurprised to say the least. I'm waiting for the BBC to acknowledge that across Europe there are people who live the protester lifestyle, and to whom any opportunity to heckle the leader of the economically advanced world is oxygen for their fevered moonbat minds. Harry's Place has shined a sidelight from the New Statesman on the relationship between the BBC and the moonbats- and how the editors at the Beeb have suppressed scrutiny of the anti-war alliances. It's a bit skewed, but it's interesting.

You know a holiday season beckons when the moonbats start to gather in large numbers, but also when you find the latest Harry Potter film to the fore. Jonathan Last in the Weekly Standard 'hails' the latest Potter as the best yet. Erin Montgomery, meanwhile, notes a classier kind of moonbat gathering- one which contained people who know how to make money- notably George Soros and Hilary Clinton. It's fair to say there was a certain lack of gravitas at the very expensive Take Back America conference in Washington. Contributions to the dialogue like

'* "George Bush is nuts."

* "I don't care if John Kerry is a sack of cement; we're going to carry him to victory."

* "Battling the bastards [conservatives] is about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on."'

tell me that the silly season- business as usual for some- is gathering momentum amidst the surreality of George Bush having to visit the Pope and Jacques Chirac in the same weekend.

Oh, and Tim Henman lost (no link).

Ever at pains to paint a picture of a historically illiterate President Bush, today the BBC contributes to Bush's image problem by a misleading report which states that 'President Bush has strongly defended the US-led war on terror, casting it as a struggle between freedom and tyranny similar to World War II... he said they were fighting the same war as those who battled the Nazis.'

In fact Bush was saying something much more subtle than that. Elsewhere in the speech, unquoted by the BBC, he made the point that 'In some ways, this struggle we're in is unique. In other ways, it resembles the great clashes of the last century', and he foregrounded it by drawing points of comparison including one the Beeb mention, that

'Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless, surprise attack on the United States'.

This, of course, is a specific and accurate point of comparison (to an attack from the Japanese, not the Nazis), not a general attempt to compare the WoT with WW2. The Beeb fail to mention that Bush also said 'The terrorists of our day are, in some ways, unlike the enemies of the past.' , and then went on to articulate this point, too:

'The terrorist ideology has not yet taken control of a great power like Germany or the Soviet Union.'

It is really the BBC who is being historically illiterate, since it is they who are saying that when Bush mentions 'the murderous ideologies of the last century' he is referring to Nazism, when in fact it's clear he means Communism as well- but the Beeb seem to ignore that point. It's strange, really, because the Beeb are usually quite keen to explore the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam (a battle against popular communists).

Not only that, but the word 'Nazi', in my quick scan, appeared only once- unsurprising really since America spent much of its energies in the Far East during the period 1941-45. Japan's ideology was somewhat different to the Nazi's, although compatible.

Actually, as I write, the BBC report seems even worse than I thought. I mean, why would Bush have referred to the struggles of the 'last century' if he meant a four year period (or a bit longer, if you include reconstruction) in the 1940's? The BBC reading of it is a pure wilful misreading of a powerful, intelligent and articulate speech.

There is no link from the BBC report to Bush's speech to dispel the fog, but fortunately it can be found here.

Are you tired of all the thoughtless negativity over Iraq? Do you feel let down by the moaning minnies at the BBC whose biases are so strong that good news immediately sends them into a tailspin, ditching previously stated views without acknowledgement?

Try David Warren, a model of concision with a shrewdly balanced range of 'Essays of our Times'- one of Mark Steyn's favourites and his fellow Canadian.

Pot Calls Kettle Black, Shock.

There's always something to wind me up in a Paul Reynolds article. It may not be much, but riling it nonetheless is.

Says Reynolds on good news from Iraq: 'However, before London and Washington start bringing out the old metaphors about "turning the corner" in Iraq, there are many obstacles to overcome.'

Yep, you read correctly, BBC journalist accuses politician of eagerness to use tired metaphors. The same journalist who borrowed the rather tired old metaphorical term 'quagmire' to describe war in Iraq (the BBC imports it whenever they get the chance, and the thing mushroomed up substantially on the web from the reporting of Reynolds)

Another point of rilement (I make up words on this blog quite wilfully) occurs when Reynolds says 'Ideally, the US and UK would like the resolution [the UN resolution on the transitional Government] approved by the time of the D-Day celebrations on 6 June, and certainly by the start of the G8 summit in the US on 8 June. The Western allies could then present a united front after their deep divisions.'

The notion that France will really unite behind the Coalition Iraq strategy, or that Germany will be seen as an ally on June 6th, is too surely too far-fetched (or even that the old-fashioned term 'Western allies' has much meaning when Japan and Korea have been more steadfast than Spain, and France actively opposed the war diplomatically), and equally it'd be crazy to imply there were 'deep divisions' between the US and UK- crazy except for a certain kind of stirrer. Maybe Reynolds is that sort.

Anyway, for some reason Reynolds feels he needs to offer 'a word, though, of caution', and informs us that a political schedule for elections and handover in Iraq does not necessarily mean a military schedule, or 'Ending a mandate and withdrawing are not quite the same things'.

Well, indeed.

And then I notice the prophet of gloom (Reynolds) observing that US voters might be pleased by a timetable suggesting 'troops out' by 2006, and concerned that this illusory date of completion might be 'not a bad thing... for a US President on the election trail'- hence the warning.

Well, thanks Paul, on behalf of all my US friends, but I thought you thought that the US was verging on pulling troops out to escape the quagmire of Iraq? Less than a month ago I recall you saying 'Events in Iraq have been spinning out of control - and out of control of the spinners - so fast on so many fronts that the W word - withdrawal - is now being mentioned.'

Presumably the 'spinners' have now regained control sufficiently to stage events like the D-Day commemorations.

Proof that blogs can...

produce the goods. Look: here and here. Fascinating.

Back To Sudan.

A while ago I'd the temerity to write about the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan. I've spent time in east Africa and something about the BBC coverage made me uneasy. In large part it was the reluctance to report the Sudanese Government's responsibility for the genocidal activities in Darfur. There was also a reticence about the Islamic fundamentalist nature of the regime.

This Telegraph article reinforces some of these fears, if you keep in mind that the BBC World Service -the main engine of overseas BBC reporting- are funded directly from the Foreign Office. Patrick Smith says

'Government has remained remarkably reluctant to criticise Sudan's Islamist government for gross oppression in Darfur'- a criticism I levelled at the BBC two months ago.

Smith, a respected authority, has no hesitation in saying 'Sudan government forces and their allies have continued to bomb and burn their way across the western region with impunity. The tragedy unfolding there is of Khartoum's political design.'

This last phrase is particularly interesting. Smith thinks that the negotiations over peace with the south of Sudan have enabled the Sudanese government to turn its attention to Darfur, where the Jangaweed have been doing the dirtiest work backed by the Government forces with which they can at times be indistinguishable.

Meanwhile,
'The Security Council has declined to condemn the Khartoum government',
which is not surprising when Sudan is a member of the UN Human Rights commission.

Now, into this mix comes Hilary Andersson's latest bit of investigative journalism for the BBC.

To some extent this fills the gap in their coverage, but it's still rather confused. It seems the Beeb, having fluffed reporting effectively the nature of events and their origins earlier on, are still in the 'scene setting' phase. Hence we get a lot of atmospherics from Andersson and indictments that are sharp in tone but vague in focus:

'No-one in the refugee camps spoke of gun battles between soldiers, only of massacres of civilians by the Janjaweed militia - Arab militiamen often seen fighting with the Sudanese government - or of massacres resulting from aerial bombings of villages by Sudanese government planes. '

Other instances of the same thing from Ishbel Matheson in this article:

'For months, the Islamic government in Khartoum, together with traditional Arab militia, have been accused of pursuing a scorched earth policy in western Sudan.

Everything we saw, everything we heard, suggests that this is true.

...there is little evidence that the government is willing, or able, to rein in the militia.'


Despite appearances, this phrasing does not actually implicate the Sudanese Government in acts of genocide- the kind of thing that might bring momentum for a UN resolution or pave the media road to an International Courtroom for Sudanese apparatchiks.

As to the role of religion in this flourishing ethnic genocide, what is undeniable is that there is a radical Islamic, warlike government in Khartoum, one which oppresses its own people and strategises peace apparently to make war. The desire not to offend Islam appears a significant factor in the failure to report Darfur with the clarity that is available. Those looking to analyse the appalling actions in Darfur might look at general trends of oppression of blacks by Islam, and specific outbreaks of such trends in Darfur.

Instead, as Andersson ends with a good old-fashioned humanist lament- I woke up when the moon finally rose at three o'clock in the morning. I watched as it cast its pale ghostly light across the cursed land we had seen and wondered, after Rwanda and Bosnia, why Darfur is being allowed to happen? - I am left thinking that this has been an apology for not reporting, rather than a wholehearted attempt to report. Of course I am sympathetic to British diplomatic dilemmas, but I wish the BBC didn't make an eery echo of them in their reporting.

Well, each case is different, but it doesn't help when specific indictments are ignored in favour of mystifying nuances. If only they could bring themselves to be less nuanced when the bad guys are Arabs and not American 'cowboys' and other obvious villains.

David Frum seems to have the distinction between fact and fantasy well drawn. His conception of the modern kind of 'news' goes well alongside my earlier post about Mordecai Vanunu. It's the interweaving of 'accusations' alongside 'reality' that makes BBC journalism what it is. Frum mentions Amnesty International- which was another of the Beeb's favourite stories last week:

'Two Worlds

Sometimes it seems we live in two worlds, one of accusations and one of reality.

In the world of accusation, Amnesty International charges the United States and allied governments with carrying out the worst human-rights violations in fifty years in the name of anti-terrorism.

In the world of reality, it has taken the US and Britain 2 1/2 years after 9/11 to indict Abdul Hamza for involvement in terrorism.

In the world of accusation, a former Democratic vice president of the United States can explode in an eyeball-bulging, vein-popping rant against the “worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America.”

In the world of reality, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president now vows to continue the principal security policies of that same allegedly disastrous administration.'

Steyn Says: Think bigger, think calmer.

On Iraq: 'Iraq won't be perfect, but it will be okay - and in much better shape than most of its neighbours.'

On Bush: 'don't make the mistake of assuming that Bush's poll numbers on Iraq have fallen because people want him to be more multilateralist and accommodating. On my anecdotal evidence, they want him to be more robust and incendiary.'

On Kerry's 'destroy you' speech: 'the ne plus ultra of weathervane politicians, seems to have figured there aren't enough votes in sounding like Michael Moore...Does Kerry mean it? Probably not. The tough talk's a cover for what would be a return to the ineffectual reactive national-security policy of the 1990s - "I have here a piece of paper from Kim Jong-Il," etc.'

On Changing sides: 'The bleats of "Include me out!" from the fairweather warriors isn't a sign of their belated moral integrity but of their fundamental unseriousness.'

On Moving on: 'I am already looking for new regimes to topple.'

On Losing: 'I'm a relatively relaxed hawk. The US may be forced to suffer the perception of defeat, but it is Europe that will live with the consequences.'

I'm a relatively relaxed hawk too, because however the execution is lacking, the fundamentals were right. If Steyn's correct and Europe does 'live with the consequences' of this perception of failure, I remain relaxed on a personal level because a reasonable response to what comes next depends on having a good foundation.

Priorities

Not surprised to find this morning that the BBC's top story was Mordecai Vanunu's claim that in betraying Israel's nuclear secrets he had wanted to avert a 'holocaust'. In a way Vanunu is 'their man' through his association with their documentary maker (and recent detainee of Israeli security services) Hounam. Vanunu's actual phrase was 'nuclear holocaust', but the BBC didn't bother about that in their headline. I found it needlessly provocative- rather like the Bush-Hitler comparison popular amongst extremist Democrats.

From news that is needless- just a play on words from a BBC buzz-story- to information that is profound in its implications: here's a timely re-appraisal of evidence linking Saddam with Al Qaeda from Stephen Hayes. Don't forget Mohammed Atta, but the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir ought to become better known, as should the extent the Clinton administration believed in the relationship between Bin Laden and Baghdad.

More about Oil-for-Food in this extract from Kenneth Timmerman's latest book (via Friends of Saddam). Timmerman takes you on a whistlestop tour of mainly French oil and government connections with Saddam's regime via the UN's 'relief' programme. Timmerman says:

'In a data base I compiled of 2,858 separate export requests submitted to the 661 committee, 1,646 were put on hold because of objections by one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council... In not one single case – not one! – was the hold placed on an export at the request of France.'

Backing Kerry

How do you make Kerry look solid on foreign policy? That must be the question Kerry campaigners are asking as they seek to exploit the quagmire hype about Iraq that is damaging GWB.

The BBC of course has been leading the pack as far as 'quagmire' hype goes: they tenaciously hung onto that word through the dark days following Saddam's arrest. The BBC then should know how to make Kerry look solid, just as they have shown themselves expert in making Bush look insecure.

How to do it then? Well, when the Democrats pitch for the middle ground you might take them at face value and produce an analysis saying there's little to choose between Kerry and Bush on security and the WoT (or 'so-called WoT'). That's what wavering Bushies and 'Bush Democrats' have been saying they are looking for, so why not play along, like this:

'Senator Kerry said that his number one priority would be to prevent terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Hard to see George W Bush having much problem with that.

The senator also said the US should remain the paramount military power in the world.

We've definitely heard that before from the White House.'

But wait a minute, wasn't this supposed to be an analysis? Ahh, yes, it is an analysis of how 'most US voters would be hard pressed to find much difference between the challenger and the incumbent George W Bush' -in other words, tell them what they're going to think and then rehearse the argument for them. Silly me thinking the BBC's remit was to educate and inform.

According to the BBC's Rob Watson, the differences are 'a matter of emphasis'. Yet we learn that 'On Iraq Senator Kerry said not a lot'. That sounds like a pretty big difference of 'emphasis' to me, since GWB gave a whole speech over to discussing Iraq, relating it to the WoT, the other evening.

This difference is the key one Watson ignores, preferring to discuss how not mentioning Iraq fits into the Democrat strategy. The way he reads this is instructive. Kerry, he says, wants GWB to 'stew in his own juices'. There is another way of looking at it though. It could be that Kerry doesn't have any positive ideas and the ideas he does have he's frightened to present to the people of America until he's set fair on his way into the Whitehouse.

Watson mentions that Kerry (somewhat ambiguously) was an 'early supporter' of the Iraq war, but doesn't get to the crux and ask if Kerry would have initiated it, which is, in the light of Kerry's on the record positions on Iraq, very dubious to say the least.

He doesn't ask if Kerry would act pre-emptively to defend US security, using the military option, or if instead he would rely on the multilateral agreements which were in fact 'repeatedly' the emphasis of the speech.

Those, I am sure, are the kind of emphases that the American people would regard as substantive, and on which they will make their choice later in the year.

Now, to turn to the news that could legally be explored, and explains vastly more about world politics over the last ten years than Israeli nukes, yet which has been ignored by the BBC except to report the protestations of those implicated, I refer you to Claudia Rosett's latest piece on the five paralysed fingers of investigation that are reaching out to prise open the clam-tight workings of the UN's Oil-for-Food debacle.

A search of the BBC site using the terms 'UN Oil Food' brings back less than ten relevant searches, which include such peachy titles as 'I am victim of smear campaign' (guess who) and 'UN chief hits out at fraud claims'. Such drama, and all on the side of powerful people accused of fleecing the little guy to give to the big fat despot. I mean, even if you were just concerned to report the news, five investigations into the biggest financial transaction in UN history would merit, say, just a little of the Enron treatment (search 'Enron scandal' and you get, well, hundreds of relevant hits). Even more if you thought a cover up was taking place.

On the subject of arrests, this looks to be a good one. As usual though, the BBC are obsessed with the US death penalty (rather than with what Hamza has been doing while incubated by his generous British hosts) - which somehow seems a distant prospect in the case of Abu Hamza, despite the tough words of John Ashcroft.

To Dabble Or Not To Dabble?

In politics I mean (hat-tip to Max).

Today the media's attention has been drawn by the arrest and possible release of Peter Hounam, Times journalist and friend of Mordechai Vanunu.

Key to Hounam's arrest is that he's been employed by the BBC to quiz Vanunu for a two hour documentary that would be quite a scoop- possibly an echo of the original scoop by the Times in 1986 which Hounam was party to and which confirmed Israel's status as a nuclear power. Unfortunately for Hounam and maybe Vanunu, this contravened a condition of Vanunu's release: not to talk to foreigners.

What's clear from the episode is that the BBC has little respect for Israel's right to its own legal processes (not to mention its security). It's said that the BBC went to the trouble of renting a luxury apartment to facilitate the interview.

Of course now the talk will be about how Israel suppresses journalistic freedom. Actually it would appear that Israel is concerned about its security and cares to enforce its laws. There's so much that journalists could learn legally that they can't be bothered to deal with, they instead resort to tawdry methods that promise more presentable 'dirt'.

Seems likely the BBC think that the big problem in the region is that Israel has nukes whereas underdogs like the Palestinians and Syrians don't- and that international 'outrage' over this imbalance may force change on Israel. This brings to mind the comment of a French MEP, who in 2001 called for Arab Countries to be armed with nukes to balance things out so that Israel 'cannot do simply whatever what it wants'.

The General Slant of BBC News remains consistent. Today the BBCOnline top slot was devoted to Amnesty International's fanciful condemnation of the "WoT" (big double quotes there) for provoking so much more human rights abuse. It's fanciful, when you consider the end of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's regime as two of the WoT's (no quotes at Talking Hoarsely) considerable fruits, but it does coincide with the BBC's belief, and that's BIG NEWS for us all.

So, just another day of bad news for Bush, sigh. That's on top of Abu Grayib (whatever the spelling I'm tired of writing it), Wedding bombings and that damaged Mosque in Najaf.

Now, ignoring for a moment the bogus wedding, what about that damaged Mosque? The BBC reported that it was damaged in clashes between 'the Americans' and followers of Al Sadr. Aside from wondering why the Americans come first in this scenario, I am also wondering why, when BBC correspondents talk of Shia 'outrage', it is automatically assumed that it is the US that must defend itself, which it is duly reported as having done.

Of course the next thing we hear about the attack in the report (after we have dutifully read about the overnight 'civilian' casualties in Najaf and Kufa, presuming them as reliable as the figures for Falluja or the "wedding bombing" where so many children died, ahem) is when Al Sadr reportedly comes to inspect the site 'amid chanting from crowds'. Whether they were chanting 'go home you idiot' is not made clear.

It is not until two thirds of the way down the report that we hear

'A representative of militant cleric, Ahmed Shebani, said five or six missiles had hit the building.

It was not clear who fired the missiles. ',

but when the US Brig. Gen. Kimmitt (who seems to me to be a quite inspired spokesman) claims that the US had "no involvement" you can be sure that double-quotemarking it is not designed to inspire confidence.

So, I guess it will be up to The Scotsman to tell us that a senior Shia (far more senior than Al-Sadr, the whippersnapper) under the patronage of Al-Sistani believes that Al-Sadr's men were responsible for the damage to the Mosque.

They do, though, find time to report elsewhere (alongside the 'good news' of Al-Sadr's Lieutenant's capture) a remark made to Reuters by someone called al-Khazali that

"This is part of the US military escalation against the Shia. We've lost hope in negotiations. What is happening is a liquidation of Shia, especially the Sadr movement." ,

which is just plain ridiculous (trying to recall the actionas of Saddam against the Shia) and unworthy of any reputable News Agency, but from Reuters it comes to us via the BBC. It's obvious that this is emotional blackmail from a deceitful loser, and therefore right up the BBC's street.

We Can Do It If We Work Together.

That ought to be the motto for Iraq, but as we know 'united' is not a word we associate -or are allowed to associate- with GWB's administration. It's far more noticeable that the anti-war forces, who have remained bitterly united, believe in the value of togetherness.

To an unprepared spectator there seems an unbroken stream of military men and administration figures coming forward to express unhappiness with one aspect or another of the WoT. That's not to mention the non-governmental side of things.

One of the reasons for the revelatory effect in these cases is that the media manage sources with an eye on the political agenda (and of course for the sources there is often a similar interest). To tell us much about these sources and their motivations would spoil the political effect. I was fascinated in January when Gavyn Davies, chairman of the BBC (until Hutton!) talked of the need to 'manage the news'.

Thus, due to the Media's overwhelming desire to 'make a difference' by 'managing the news', even when we are switched on things slip past.

Reading happily through the entries at David'sMedienKritik I saw a name I recognised:

Gen. Joseph Hoare, who is readily Googled using the terms 'absolutely brink failure abyss', finally made his way into the German media as a 'source' for their latest bout of quagmire editorialising.

What you don't read, and what you didn't read when the BBC used him as a source in a recent article in which they reported more Abu Ghraib piccies as part of mounting bad news for the Coalition, is that Gen. Hoare was a considerable supporter of Dr. Howard Dean, back when the not-yet-screaming Vermonster stood roughly at Ketchup Kerry's shoulder in the Democratic Nomination race. The connotations for Hoare's long-term views on the Iraq war are fairly clear.

I am sure the BBC's Justin Webb, Washington Correspondent, just has a poor memory for that sort of thing.

Trying to Work an Angle.

It's something I've noticed while examining the media: there'll be a concerted attempt to force spokespeople, usually of Governments, to concede an angle on a story that can then be exploited. In the case of Iraq this has generally been far from fair. Godspeed then to this guy who's laid down the gauntlet to the Big Media over their twist of a press conference questioning session from one General Mattis that dealt in passing with the 'Wedding Party' (personally I remain sure that it was an insurgency waystation and safehouse that they bombed).

The media are looking to talk up the notion of failure at the expense of success, and here to infer that the US mainly took out civilians- if they took out insurgents at all. Thus they elided without acknowledgement the words that General Mattis used about Falluja so that they appeared to refer to the so-called 'wedding bombing'. They did this more or less en bloc, hunting as a pack, with strongly anti-war papers like the Independent to the fore.

A Great Speech. Perhaps, as a non-American, I am less aware of the week by week, month by month ebb and flow of opinion polls and media opinion about an incumbent President like George W. Bush- but I thought it was a great speech W. gave last night. Not a B+, as Andrew Sullivan and Roger Simon gave it, but a straight A.

I can't say I was able to hear it live, but I've seen the video and read the transcript and it's a balanced, logical, detailed and serious piece of work that still manages to flourish a patriotic flag occasionally and look at the wider picture. One speech can only do so much but the impressive thing about it was the logic and the grasp of detail that Bush has so often been accused of lacking

A measure of a speech's success is whether it makes opponents pause for thought. The BBC's analysis from Bush-disliking Nick Childs was fairly low on the stinging sarcasm that's been the normal reaction to W's efforts (I doubt this will be the case in the TV reports- but more detail is required, and more authenticity, when the medium is the written word). Yes, there's the usual sort of spiel that the President 'ditches' plans (as opposed to adapting to unfolding situations) whereas bodies like the UN are merely 'sceptical' (as opposed to fussy and contrary)- the typical rhetorical contrasts- but overall you sense that the critic is a little becalmed. Even unfair critics have to be when an effective performance forestalls their usual criticisms.

Looking away from the Beeb for a moment, Andrew Sullivan has this analysis (originally in London Times) of the US domestic political situation and the Iraq situation in tandem. I like his guarded optimism:

'There is, in other words, no panic among senior officials. There is a deep sense that neither the war nor the election is lost; and that victory against the nexus of terror and tyranny in the Arab-Muslim world is still still within reach. In the president's words: don't mis-underestimate him. The gloomsters have overplayed their hand before; and they may well be doing so again.'

Will Paul Reynolds say sorry for getting Abu Ghraib wrong (my 'I told him so' moment here) as Documents indicate abuse was not an interrogation strategy and most of the abuse is reported to have taken place, not as a programme of abuse, but on one foul day in November?

Don't go holding your breath over that.

About That Wedding...

As Gen Kimmitt produces more detailed evidence and reasoning to suggest that the US successfully bombed a safe-house for foreign fighters, Caroline Hawley sticks to her story.

Hawley hints that the account given by local people must be true:

'There is gunfire, this time in mourning, as the coffins carrying two musicians are brought back to Baghdad for burial.'

In doing this she ignores a great deal. For instance, Kimmitt points out (in the presentation reported by CNN), there is no evidence that children were present at the strike and injured or killed, as was claimed by locals originally:

'He said that video showing dead children killed was actually recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.'

'Kimmitt showed photos of what he said were binoculars designed for adjusting artillery fire, battery packs suitable for improvised explosive devices, several terrorist training manuals, medical gear, fake ID cards and ID card-making machines, passports and telephone numbers to other countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan.'

Only a fraction of this is reported by Hawley. She prefers the accounts of local people, however contradictory, however unsubstantiated- while she says nothing about 'facts' that have been convincingly rebutted (there is no doubt that they have been convincingly rebutted, otherwise this story would be spread luridly on the front page) by Kimmitt.

The Frenzy Continues, and a more self-interested, narrow and exaggerated binge of negativity would be hard to conceive.

How long can it go on without people realising that all these 'revelations' are coming out of the same larder, like meals closely but carefully spaced to swell the public's appetite? Or do the press just intend to make foie gras of us?

We should, of course, expect terms like 'previously unseen abusive techniques' to be used to justify ongoing controversy and publications of photographs, and, obviously, the photographs will be dramatic because they were staged that way. The 'techniques' (if we must use that glorifying term) may be quantitatively different, for example riding prisoners like animals is not the same as forcing them to pretend to be animals (I think). However, qualitatively they are all very similar: the sick, ill-disciplined antics of wannabe torturers, with wannabe torturer-in-chief, sicko-twisto Spc Charles Graner at the fore (this whole thing is adjectivally challenging).

When I said 'from the same larder' I didn't mean that all the photographs are coming from the same source- the Washington Post said it got materials from the Senatorial 'private viewing' (huh) of abuse tapes and pics, and they have leaked in a number of ways. What I meant was that more and more this appears a restricted phenomenon centred on a number of vicious idiots playing out their twisted fantasies.

That's why I blame the BBC: not only have they endlessly repeated the same materials, they have trumpeted every new one. They have sustained the controversy when it seemed quietened, and they've followed the herd when it seemed enlivened. They have allowed it to smother any dissenting news agenda on Iraq, despite the evidence that Iraqis themselves don't care a great deal because they are well aware that far, far worse went on under Saddam, and anyway they're busy. All this in order to cement a continuous narrative of failure in Iraq, exemplified by Paul Reynolds' analysis, where he lists this week's 'disasters' to include the 'wedding bombing' that may well have been an outright success, the fighting in Karbala and Najaf that was initiated by the US military, and the raid on Chalabi which is surely up for debate.

All this which could be teased out reasonably the Beeb cloaks in an aura of crisis. Yes, of course bad things happened, such as the assassination of Essedine Salim, but notice Reynolds was not talking about significant US or coalition casualties, or Fallujan issues, or a spreading Shia revolt, and you will see that the 'bad' week is substantially in the eye of the beholder.

Following Howard's well-publicised jibe at Tony Blair yesterday, Charles Moore considers the potential of a constructive opposition (Tories and Democrats should take note):

'A Leader of the Opposition who clearly sought free institutions in Iraq would publicly associate himself with those Iraqis who want them too, and would be seen meeting such men and women. He would try to develop his own view of how the war against terrorism can be fought and a new Middle East shaped. Instead of being willing to wound but afraid to strike, he would be eerily constructive. Phrases about common endeavour and national unity could flow from Mr Howard's lips and he would sound a lot more grown-up than most of the people on the benches opposite. People would at least give the Tories credit for being serious about a serious subject.'

Scooping the Poop.

A few years ago I shared a Beagle called Twiggy who was great in every way except that she never quite got the hang of correct toilet procedures, which was especially difficult as she became old. I'd come downstairs in the morning and find this pile or that puddle, and occasionally the room was a mess.

Yep. That's how I feel when I look at the BBC website, as they just can't hold in their anti-Iraq war, anti-US feelings. Well, apart from the 'great in every way bit'.

So now, as then, I scoop the poop, wash the widdle, and spray the deodorising spray- metaphorically speaking.


>I'll start with the latest pile of s*** the Beeb have produced about the Abu Graib scandal. I am sure if I was able to pin a BBC journalist down and ask 'why are you reporting this rather stale stuff?' they'd have to say essentially, 'because I can' (I used to feel that if Twiggy had had a voice she would give that answer too).

So now we have Specialist Graner and Sabrina Harman pictured smiling and showing thumbs up beside a corpse. Wooooo- better put that in as top headline. These are unpleasant photographs. Only sickos would mock the dead in this way. But are the 'new' pictures showing something we don't already know (one photograph similar in nature has already been released a long while)? Or are they just keeping the pot boiling for anti-war BBC journalists momentarily stumped for a really negative line (sounds implausible, I know, given the BBC's inventiveness)?

One conclusion I draw is that the circle of abusers is not expanding with more released photographs, and nor is the range of abuse depicted. If the BBC would also draw that conclusion everything would be different- but they take the opposite line by considering it 'news'.


>Moving on to another anomaly: the presence of Michael Howard MP, Leader of the Opposition, amongst the top headlines. What hath Howard done? Why, offer some criticism of the US in Iraq and Tony Blair's relationship with GWB (never mind the fact that he described the Anglo-American relationship as a 'cornerstone' of his party's foreign policy, still supports the war etc- actually the Beeb mention this last point in passing, but the 'news' is clearly Howard's 'criticism').


>And finally, to Silvio, a most beleaguered Iraq ally of Mr Bush if this article is to be believed. Here we get around to the 'quagmire' word (unquotemarked), and an extraordinary passage dripping with political innuendo which I'll quote, italicising, emboldening and bracketing to try and disperse the stink:

'With the Spanish poised for withdrawal from Iraq after the defeat of the Aznar government in the recent general election, keeping the Italians on board the coalition is vital for Mr Bush. (the Spanish 'poised for withdrawal'? I thought they'd already gone.)

Mr Berlusconi seems to be a loyal supporter of Mr Bush, like British Prime Minster Tony Blair.

But at the same time, he wants to move rapidly forward with the next phase of extricating Italy from the Iraq quagmire.

He wants to prove to his European colleagues that he is also a loyal supporter of the United Nations.

Mr Berlusconi is pushing for a quick handover of the crisis to the UN in order to avoid the threat of civil war in Iraq when the US formally hands over sovereignty to the Iraqis on 30 June. (note: by the same logic, to 'avoid the threat' of being run down by a car you must simply avoid roads altogether).


>All the above should be read in the context of primary sources such as this letter from an experienced US soldier in Ramadi (via Glenn):

'As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism.'

Reason Rules for Wretchard as he brilliantly probes the media coverage of the supposed wedding-bombing incident. Illuminating, and more proof of the not-so-great value of 'Arab TV channel al-Arabiya, quoting eyewitnesses'.

It Takes A Nerve

It takes a nerve, having generally sidelined the horrific murder of Nicholas Berg with all its insights into the nature of radical Islam, in favour of Abu Ghraib abuse and Michael Moore's 'righteous' battle with censorship, to suddenly give Front Page prominence when a message is sent by a grieving father to those who opposed the invasion.

Similarly, it takes a nerve, having generally sidelined popular anti-establishment protests in Iran, to suddenly report on a demo when it opposes US policies in Iraq, regardless of whether the demonstration might have its origins not in a populist movement but in the establishment itself (there were more people arrested at last July's anti-Govt demos than tagged along to the one the BBC report today). It takes further nerve to end that report by saying 'Though critical of the Americans, Iran's clergy has stopped short of backing Mr Sadr.', when it's known that theocratic Iran has sheltered Al-Sadr and sent many 'pilgrims' to Karbala to coincidentially blend in with the melee of Al Sadr's revolt.

I have a couple of free news subscriptions, and I know what to expect from them: news alerts on particular lines and themes. We don't (generally) subscribe to the BBC, but we pay for it, and we know what to expect. If it were merely called anti-Bush's US news online, that might clear things up for those still in any doubt.

Being On-message at T.H. (Talking Hoarsely) means either analysing what the BBC are saying about the world, or highlighting what they don't say, or something about poetry (yes, scarce recently I know- but it's a question of priorites), or something else.

Anyway, I've found an excellent site for information about UNscam. Not only is it professional in approach, it's also clear in explanation, and wired into financial matters. It's Mineweb, and here are two excellent pieces not yet picked up even by the Instapundit: The UN's Vanishing Billions and The UN's War for Oil. I found them very helpful and will return to them again. I came to it via Friends of Saddam- well worth a regular look-see.

Stay Tuned Indeed: Lifson Lifts the lid on what may lie behind Bremer's UNscam equivocations.

BBC Bodycounting.

It's unusual to find that an opinion piece has been updated, so I was surprised by this Caroline Hawley piece on Fallujah. I slated the original, but in one way the update is worse:

Hawley says
'In parts of Falluja you could still smell death in the air. Many hundreds of Iraqis civilians are believed to have died during the course of the fighting. '

Many hundreds, eh? Civilians, eh?

Well then how come this from the LA Times via BlogIrish? :

'the Iraqi Health Ministry said at least 219 Iraqis had died in fighting in the area of Fallouja and nearby Ramadi between April 5 and April 22 [the point at which a ceasefire took hold]. The dead included 24 women and 28 children, it said. Nearly 700 people were injured, it said' (highlighting and brackets added. Further source here)

So, who 'believed' that 'many' hundreds of Iraqi 'civilians' had died in Fallujah? As in the first piece Hawley is as vague as she could be about the sources she has and the evidence she has been given. Everything is about her impressions, and these are presented in terms similar to matters of fact.

Meanwhile, on the web recently there's been a lot talked about the difficulties in estimating civilian deaths in Iraq. Josh Chavez says 'Unfortunately, in an ever faster media cycle, the press often takes numbers wherever it can get them, without bothering to inquire into the counters' agenda or even methodology. Fools and knaves come up with figures--be they advance predictions or ongoing "counts"--where responsible observers fear to tread, and the media, for lack of good numbers, cite the foolish or downright dishonest ones.'

This post at Iberian Notes is also interesting, discussing the ins and outs of bodycounting.

Generals and Generals.

What are journalists for? Are they there just to prop up the bar talking to likeminded 'sources' and to attend press conferences, or should they go and find out things?

One of the things about which we are largely ignorant is the nature of the Iraqi army prior to the invasion. Yes, we know about the numbers and the equipment, but we know little about what distinguished those close to Saddam from those who were retained because of their military competence.

Where, I wonder, did Retired Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdul-Latif fit in? The Beeb has told us very little. Today he is leading the security force in Fallujah, and he has been saying some very encouraging sounding things to the Fallujan people.

This would seem a story set up beautifully to take its place in the BBC 'In Depth' section, but the last significant feature on Fallujah remains the dreadful and inaccurate opinion piece by Caroline Hawley (see above post).

Some of Abdul-Latif's words would be like nectar coming out of the British media at the moment:

Latif, speaking in Arabic to the sheiks, defended the Marines and the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"They were brought here by the acts of one coward who was hunted out of a rathole - Saddam - who disgraced us all," Latif said. "Let us tell our children that these men (U.S. troops) came here to protect us.

"As President Bush said, they did not come here to occupy our land but to get rid of Saddam. We can help them leave by helping them do their job, or we can make them stay ten years and more by keeping fighting."

If these reflect Abdul-Latif's sincere views, then America has found a friend to help it out of its difficulties in the Sunni triangle. It would be a classic example of a successful liason between the US and Iraqis determined to put the trauma of Saddam behind them. And Saddam was a trauma to Iraq. And Iraqis are determined to build a better future. And the US was justified in every respect in launching its invasion against Saddam. And you will not hear about Abdul-Latif on the BBC until something difficult emerges for the coalition out of his juristiction. (BTW- more encouragement here)

Media War (best read alongside this post at Belmont Club)

Readers of this blog might realise how for over two weeks now I've been reporting BBC chatter about withdrawal and exit strategies from Iraq (I'm not sure yet if this chatter was reflects actual communications with an unfolding jihadi strategy, but I'm sure they're listening). Of course, idle talk (or 'foregrounding', as I prefer to call it) about 'exit strategies' was being used as far back as November last year, but now, apparently unbidden by events on the ground, the BBC has begun its morbid conversation with world and British opinion in earnest.

This despite the fact that we have (thank God) not seen a British death in Iraq for several months (and long may that continue).

But let's be clear: there is no justifiable reason for the BBC's double-spate of Iraqi-sceptic reporting. We have not yet seen the casualties they need to justify any sort of talk of crisis. That holds true for the US as well as the British, but for us it's even clearer.

It would be reassuring to think that since the BBC is obviously pushing its own 'anti' agenda it could be isolated and identified as a rogue institution, acting against our interests. Unfortunately, the BBC has rather close ties to the Foreign Office (the gang that took us round the UN houses last year, and also happen to fund the BBCWorld service directly), and political allies from the left and the TINO (Tory in name only) right. Furthermore, although it is the central institution of the UK media, it is by no means the only group that conceals its anti-Iraq war colours under a thin veil.

Since the BBC elicited or introduced the terminology of 'exit strategies' and 'withdrawal', many others have seen the sensational possibilities of that line of discussion. ITV have sought as ever to hold on to the respectable coat tails of the BBC while drawing on the tabloid-telly market. Among the newspapers, The Mirror we know about, but what about this piece of digging from The Glasgow Herald? The BBC's agenda quickly becomes the cause most reported by the wider press (and then such reporting is reciprocated -with the inscrutable words 'sources say'- and the big media echo chamber echos ever more tumultuously).

Due to the incestuous nature of media and politics in Britain- fostered by the 'insider' status of the BBC- it is frighteningly possible for a few ideologically motivated groupings to stir up a perfect media storm that will unseat or wound decisively any individual in Government (or outside) if the general conditions are right. There's no media group better positioned to set those conditions and stir up that storm than the BBC.

Taking the Mickey.

No, of course the BBC would not use this term as it is offensive to Irish people (apparently), but I feel they must be joking when they give a huge slice of free advertising to the eponymous slob of boring 'Bowling' odium.

As for the claim he makes of having filmed 'abuse' in Iraq (the BBC don't bother to quote mark this term), it appears to involve 'Soldiers... shown outdoors ridiculing a man covered in a blanket on the ground, calling him "Ali Baba".' 'Ali Baba', in case you're in any doubt, means 'thief'. This leads me to think I should begin deleting this post, before I am accused of 'crimes against humanity'. Come to think of it, it wasn't very nice of Moore to defame a significant minority group by calling them racially 'stupid', was it?

Update: Drudge lends the 'abuse' claim more colour- 'Movie shows video of U.S. soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi detainees, with one of them grabbing a prisoner's genitals through a blanket...'. Still trivial though when taken away from the Abu Graib fiasco.

Ideas are buzzing in my head this evening. I just watched the BBC Ten O'clock News, and on came Robin Cook (former Foreign Secretary and most substantial opponent of the war in Iraq in the Commons). Hearing him talk about the need for an exit strategy for British troops just brought to mind Paul Reynolds and a hyped-up report that ran recently saying that Powell and co have stated that if the new Iraqi government wanted us to leave we would (imagine the world reaction if we said we'd be there whether they wanted us or not).

Meanwhile there was talk of Tony Blair's future being in jeopardy.

In a word it's 'synchronicity'. It's the way the anti-war left, the BBC and doves from boths sides of the Atlantic synchronise their reporting and their statements to build the political pressure to get what they want. I think it's the speciality of the left, though not their preserve. It surely cannot be coincidence that this mantra of 'exit strategy' has gained traction just now. It's sickening when you think who the real beneficiaries of this flexing media-muscle are

There are some people on the right though who have an uncanny knack of picking the mood and dissecting it. Just as I hear Tony Blair's death rattle being practiced, Mark Steyn encapsulates this trend:

'In the last few days, the Mirror, a raucous Fleet Street tabloid, has published pictures of British troops urinating on Iraqi prisoners, and the Boston Globe, a somnolent New England broadsheet, has published pictures of American troops sexually abusing Iraqi women. In both cases, the pictures turned out to be fake. From a cursory glance at the details in the London snaps and the provenance of the Boston ones, it should have been obvious to editors at both papers that they were almost certainly false.

Yet they published them. Because they wanted them to be true. Because it would bring them a little closer to the head they really want to roll -- George W. Bush's.'

Yes, and if Tony Blair insists on standing with GWB- which the BBC only tonight described as infuriating to Blair's own party- he will find his neck expendable too. Synchronicity.

One final thought. I've heard it said that the only people to resign so far in incidents related to the WoT and Iraq are journalists like Gilligan, Dyke and Morgan, who have defended lies to get at Tony Blair over the war. Well, if they succeed in the ultimate aim they will be able to reap the dubious spoils that will attend an anti-WoT dispensation. And it's not as if they haven't already got lucrative substitutes for the positions they lost. That's the way today's media works: win, win.

The Blame Game.

'Should there be many civilian casualties, the Americans will not be the only ones to blame'.

That's the BBC's view of operations in Najaf. Yet another example of the moral equivalence that has marked their coverage of Iraq.

Here are some reasons why it's wrong:

A)There are good legal reasons for arresting Al-Sadr. Had he not been suspected of murdering opponents he would never have been wanted by the coalition.

b)It follows from this that his revolt has no justification, either legal or moral. More senior Shias asked him to be patient with the coalition and he refused.

c)His militia is not wanted by the people of Najaf- he has merely occupied a holy site to boost his profile and aid his defence.

D)He has not honoured agreements that might have defused the situation.

E)His men have been engaging in attacks on US troops that have partly been responsible for provoking a response.

F)The US soldiers did not choose a civilian centre to fight in, but have decided to engage with him there because he will engage with them nowhere else.

G)The US soldiers have no interest in, nor will they, engage the civilian population of Najaf in fighting.

I fail to see from these why the US should considered 'to blame' for civilian casualties in Najaf. Of course, if they are operationally careless or deliberately callous then on a case by case basis some US troops may be 'to blame', but we are not talking about morally equivalent groupings. Could it be that the journalist concerned brings with them an Al-Jazeera perspective?

I'll start with a complaint about the BBC. Well, what's new?

It really annoyed me that for several days the BBC website reported a vague claim that the further revelations of photos from Abu Graib were 'even worse' than the previous ones. This phrase was taken from the reactions of Senators who were given a private viewing of materials that in the light of Nick Berg's killing were to be (sort of) withheld from the public domain. You know, there are anti-war Senators out there, and even Democrats (shock), but the BBC reports the 'even worse' comment (unscrutinised) religiously among its headlines for days.

But what did the Senators mean by 'worse'? Well, I have heard no new revelations (we still have the naked prisoners, the leash, the masturbatory activities, the dogs, but no really fresh concrete images. These, of course, are more than we wanted). What I have heard is that 'Congress members, who viewed shocking new pictures of abuse in the Iraqi jail, said England appeared in a sicko video having sex in front of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and that she was snapped in graphic sex acts with other U.S. soldiers.'

And you know, I'm thinking that we in Britain used to make Carry-On films about things like this. And I'm wondering whether (hypothetically, as time's winged chariot hath taken many of the cast away and wrinkled others beyond repair) we could get away with Barbara Windsor as Lynndie England (phnaargh, phnaargh) and Sid James as Spc. Charles Graner (we could change his name to 'Boner').

But what I'm really thinking is that for days the BBC has been kidding its readers into imagining that the Abu Ghraib affair is worse than we've been told, and that means that instead of degeneracy (which we could have comfortably ignored) we've been visualising torture, and so have radical clerics in Basra and elsewhwere.

Chortling Hoarsely Notes that Piers Morgan has been sacked and that his paper says it has been the victim of a 'calculated and malicious hoax'. Hoarsely's only regret is that now Piers will probably get a golden goodbye handshake.

A Small Point, but one I think is both very important and indicative.

Whose side are we watching from when the BBC reports from Iraq (we know how they value their Al Jazeera contacts)?

Below I pointed out how Paul Reynolds' analysis showed little awareness of US military decisiveness in Iraq, and consequently said they were 'bowing to a new reality'.

This morning the BBC's headlines have made an interesting contrast with other news providers:

'Fierce Fighting Erupts in Najaf:

US forces clash with fighters loyal to Shia Cleric Moqtada al Sadr, as hundreds of inmates are freed from Abu Ghraib jail.'

Meanwhile Yahoo News reported (a Reuter's report):

'U.S. Tanks Thrust Into Iraq Cemetery at Holy City :

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. forces intensified their war against Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Friday, for the first time sending tanks into Najaf's vast cemetery to blast guerrilla positions among its tombs. '

The difference? Well, obviously, one sets a defensive tone, the other an offensive one. The former depicts an apparently unplanned 'eruption' of violence. The latter a miltary 'thrust' on the part of US forces. In the BBC's report (and caveat lector, this may change without warning or acknowledgement) it is not clear, as it is in the Reuters' one, that the Tank movements preceded and provoked the fighting. Naturally as they did so they were 'bowing to a new reality on the ground' in accordance with pundit Paul Reynolds' analysis.

This reminded me of Melanie Phillips' recent comments on media bias, which now seem just right:

'It cannot be said too often: in the war the west is being forced to fight against demented savagery and barbarism, its own media is manipulating public opinion by warping its coverage and distorting reality to bring about the defeat of its own side. It is, quite simply, nothing less than outright treachery.'

It's Paul Reynolds time again, and he's saying the same thing as last time. 'Iraq: Time For An Exit Strategy' obviously works on the principle that if he keeps on with the same line, one day he will be correct. I'd agree with him there- if you keep on saying 'exit strategy', 'exit strategy', 'exit strategy', sometime the great day will come and the US military will indeed execute an 'exit strategy' and leave Iraq.

Until then he might be whistling, and for a long time, the same boring tune (which hasn't bothered him so far).

As usual with Reynolds, his analysis is founded on fact. Like every good work of fiction it builds from reality a superstructure that's contrived and slightly fanciful. That's what I look for in a work of fiction, so I feel Reynolds (like many at the BBC) may have missed his vocation.

Reynolds begins, 'unless Iraq can be stabilised soon'... and you realise immediately you're supposed to assume Iraq is unstable, which would semi-understandable if you had any definition of 'stability' to work from. In Iraq the model and Iraq and Iraqi's, not to mention Healing Iraq (slightly more sombre), the bloggers seem to be going about their businesses more and more reasonably, and Ali insists that the commercial world is booming, and despite incentives to dump the Dinar in the Middle East, the Iraqi currency is stable. Stable, see? Meaning where it was yesterday, roughly speaking. So Reynolds must want us to see it differently to that, in other words, deteriorating.

Interesting then that the Christian Science Monitor reports 'the number of targeted attacks and casualties against security forceshas dropped in recent weeks, relative to previous months.' The UK military hasn't (at the time of writing) suffered a fatality in Iraq in the last three months among its thousands of troops. The Coalition has so far suffered fewer casualties this month than last, at a rate comfortably lower than that sustained in November 2003.

'No, but' (yes, Paul, I'm listening) 'Already coalition forces are trying to reduce confrontations...' . Mmmm- that would sort of hold true for Fallujah (I say sort of because if you read the Belmont Club you will find that the strategy is still centred on defeating the ring-leaders of opposition there- by harnessing the local people), but what about Karbala? Surely there the coalition are actively confronting Moqtada Al-Sadr and his mardi bunch? The Belmont Club, for instance, reports the New York Times saying 'Though the Americans say they are determined to destroy Mr. Sadr's forces, they have been cautious about bringing the war to the holy areas here and in Najaf.'- which doesn't so much sound defensive as cautiously aggressive. Why it doesn't enter Reynolds' account to consider such reports I don't know, considering the BBC's extensive worrying about offending muslim sensibilities. The US has been reported loudly for bombing the wall of a Mosque compound in Falluja, yet as soon as it demonstrates its sensitivity it is cast as incapable of asserting itself.

In fairness to Reynolds, he does report fighting in Karbala, but he plays it down because it doesn't fit with his appraisal of a newly defensive coalition approach. He says 'the latest policy does not exclude military action from time to time against the Sadr militia', which somewhat contrasts with the by now well known US soldier's report of heavy fighting and a strategy to defeat Sadr. Yes, Reynolds mentions the fighting, but as a sidenote to the big issue of 'the latest policy'. This phrase, 'the latest policy' takes us inside one of Reynolds' real prejudices against the US-led coaliion. It says, 'look at them floundering around for something that works in Iraq'.

At other times it would be 'events, dear boy, events', but here it's the policy vacuum that gets Reynolds' goat. Either approach only signals criticism in Reynolds' journalism.

He concludes by using US commanders' opinions to back up his argument. He says 'The coalition is bowing to a new reality over security. It cannot impose its will and this is accepted by senior soldiers with experience on the ground.'

He quotes Major General Charles Swannack (a former commander in Iraq) when he 'said that tactically the US was winning but when asked if overall it was losing, replied: "I think strategically we are." '

This is interesting, because clearly this was a leading question (and irritating, because there are no links to these 'remarkable interviews'). But it's also interesting that Reynolds thinks that 'tactically winning' means that the coalition 'cannot impose its will'. 'Tactically winning' has got to mean something. If it is not overall success then it must mean military success (ie, the capability, on the ground, to deal with whatever opposition you face), and if it is overall success then what the hell is Reynolds worrying about? (or gloating about?)

But success is a word you will not convince Paul Reynolds to associate with the US in Iraq in a hurry. Not until they have executed their 'exit strategy', and then we will hear something like 'they assumed success in May 2003, but...' but Paul knew better.

While the BBC luxuriates in one story about photographs (and I mean luxuriates), the story of the Daily Mirror's faked photographs is just surfacing.

Somehow I am more confident that the people who took photographs in Abu Ghraib will be brought to justice than those who faked the British photographs to put lives in danger in Iraq. Come to think of it, I am more confident that Lynndie England will be brought to justice than those who videotaped the vile murder of Nicholas Berg, a story that the BBC were quick to entwine with the notion (in accordance with the wishes of the killers) that it was a reprisal for 'Abu Ghraib'.

When you have BBC articles saying things like 'I do not have the picture in front of me, yet I can see clearly the gentle, almost pre-pubescent body of the female GI loosely holding the dog lead, head turned, her other arm relaxed - held slightly away from her torso. And I can see the writhing man on the other end, naked and destroyed.', how can they not see that their own hype is implicated in the heinous crime that they then feel free to imply is linked to US behaviour?

Update: Now we know for sure about those Mirror fakos. The ball's in your court, Morgan.

More Realities On The Ground, and a challenge from Iraq the Model (I keep hearing people like Paul Reynolds of the BBC saying time is running out for the coalition. Well, Ali agrees time is running out, but for a different set of individuals and interests):

Please, all those who care about the poor Iraqis and want to save them from the brutality of the American invaders and who want to prevent the Americans from stealing our fortune; meaning Bin laden, Zagrawi and their followers, Arab and Muslim tyrants, our good friend monsieur Dominique de Villepin, all the pacifist of the world, the major media, and in short, all those who hate America and obviously love Iraq: Get your s**t together and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or else one or two years from now Iraq will be…a prosperous country, and then we will never forgive you for letting us down when we needed you!

Some More Realities On The Ground- A Contrast (bearing in mind that the crux of the Coalition success -and the crux of the coalition moral self-respect- in Iraq is the underlying will of the Iraqi people. If people like Sadr are opposed by the Iraqis, then the way to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq is well and truly open. News indeed!):

The BBC: Sadr tells Mehdi Army to fight on

A US soldier's email: I wanted to write to the American people about why our fight w/ Sadr is going so well and why they should not be seduced by the media/press image that this is somehow a disaster.

On reading these accounts I understand why the BBC's coverage of Iraq is so sketchy and depleted: they simply will not use the sources most close to hand.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has more observations about Al Sadr and the US success in opposing him (thanks to Kerry at BBBC). I cannot imagine the reporting he cites from the New York Times ever coming out of the BBC- they do not care what the US are doing unless it is bad. The opportunities missed to prove its seriousness about balanced journalism in Iraq just continue to mount- as its relationship to Al Jazeera appears ever closer.

A Down-to-Earth Approach to Bias from Daniel Finkelstein in the Times today- an article I should thank BBBC commenter Andrew Bowman for drawing to my attention.

He's pragmatic, using canny examples to prove his point. He cleverly doesn't take on the BBC directly, but refers to John Humphrys' self-confessed "bias in favour of challenging those in power". All he will say is 'My Today programme, which I would also claim was politically impartial, might often turn out to be very different from the one that is being broadcast.'

His example of BBC bias is a cracker (if bias ever can be cracking):

I remember watching BBC news shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Centre. The reporter linking the items casually announced that he was standing in Jerusalem where the events of September 11 had begun and where, ultimately, they would have to end. This was stated as if it was objective and factual, when it was, instead, a political opinion and one with which I strongly disagree. Someone else might have made this assertion while standing in, say, Finsbury Park or Tehran.

I find myself in vociferous agreement with Finkelstein when he says, topically,

'Every single choice made by a news programme reflects the values of the people who make it. They decide, for instance, to report night after night on the Palestinian question rather than the dreadful problems in the Sudan.',

but I'm not entirely with him when he says that 'bias is inescapable', because although some kind of bias will always squeak out at some point, there is a vast span separating 'good journalism' across the 'gulf of bias' from 'propaganda' which I would not want to dismiss. It is time however for many in the media to admit that they cannot claim reasonably to be at the opposite pole to propagandists- a claim that Greg Dyke effectively made in the Autumn when criticising US 'flag-waving' journalists.

Yes, good journalism is 'to find out the truth' by 'challenging all contributors', but it isn't about inviting chosen contributors for or against a cynically chosen world-view justified on the grounds that 'bias is inescapable'. At least, though, admitting the likelihood of bias is opening that possible cynicism up to scrutiny.

I feel I should mention again that this appeared in the Times newspaper- you know, the one owned by allegedly Beeb-o-phobic 'media mogul' Rupert Murdoch- and although it says nothing about the license fee or the BBC's charter review any Beeb-o-phile will no doubt join the dots, spell 'conspiracy', and see intimations of the BBC's mortality that Greg Dyke feared recently when he said 'the vultures are circling'. Well I'm sure that Finkelstein would admit that he, and the Times who decided to publish his article, are indeed biased- and say good luck to people who admit to having opinions.

In the crackingly biased finale to his article Finkelstein points humorously back to first principles:

'How on earth can something sound good in theory but not in practice? If something doesn’t work in practice, in what sense does it work? And if it doesn’t work, how can the theory behind it be any good? The whole point of theory is to explain how things work in practice.'

The theory he has in mind? That of the existence of a balanced and impartial broadcaster-
like the BBC perhaps?

A wonderful article, and the last thing I want to pick out is Finkelstein's digression about his least favourite media expression- the 'U-Turn'. Apart from strongly agreeing with his sentiments, I think that he is hinting courteously that what is needed is a media U-turn (centering in the UK on the BBC), away from the notion of impartial broadcasting and towards doing one's news-provision thing to the best of one's ability.

(Special) Friends of Palestine. Sometimes when viewing the BBC's coverage of Israel and area you can't help wondering what contacts they have and what friends their correspondents make out there.

Perhaps it's not entirely their fault- few Israelis want to talk to them (generally out of moral repugnance at an organisation they see as terrorist apologists)- but there are an awful lot of occasions where they go and trawl through opinion among Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.

Alan Johnston's been out and about again in Gaza recently, touting around for sound-bytes on the 'so-called road map' (his phrase). You can imagine his line of questioning (in arabic)- 'excuse me, sir/madam, would you like to tell me what you think of the so-called roadmap?', to which the response might be 'mmmemph! That so-called road map!'. It it any wonder that 'A journey up the Gaza Strip illustrates the local people's disillusionment.'?

In fact the regularly blasphemed road-map could constructively have been left out of this foray and this report. They could be asking a question like, 'do you support Ariel Sharon's recent plan for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip?' or 'what do you think of the Likud membership who blocked Sharon's withdrawal plan?'. That would be interesting if insightfully reported. Ah well.

I wonder if he also tried to engage debate on the trial of the IDF soldier who shot Tom Hurndall last spring? A BBC correspondent would have been able to sympathise with Palestinian grievances, as this reporting of Hurndall's mother's response demonstrates:

'She said she still found it difficult to believe that justice would be done.

"It is not sufficient to come this far merely for the staging of a show trial," she said.

The BBC's Middle East correspondent James Reynolds says there is an inescapable feeling among many that this trial is going ahead because the victim was British, not Palestinian.'

There are three calumnies that the BBC succeeds in spreading here. One, ignoring the fact that Hurndall's mother naturally wants the killer to face the consequences of his actions, implying that the Israelis are not supplying that. Two, that now the case has been brought it will be a public relations exercise. Three, that the whole process is tainted with racism.

But what about the other side? The fact that the Israelis initially contested the case shows that they did not intend to make a special allowance for Mr Hurndall's citizenship (incidentally I notice that one of the charges against 'their' man is obstruction of justice). It also shows that they did not intend on there being any 'show-trial'. Conveying no appreciation that this is an example of Israeli willingness to submit their activities in Gaza to the law courts might explain why the only people who want to talk to the BBC are Palestinians.

Melanie Phillips reports:

'The BBC internal inquiry into what went wrong over Andrew Gilligan's infamous Today broadcast which led to the David Kelly affair and the Hutton inqury and provoked the biggest crisis in the Beeb's history, has found that nothing went wrong apart from Andrew Gilligan and no-one was to blame apart from Andrew Gilligan.'

Michael Grade's comment? :

"The greatest threat to the independence of the BBC is the self-censorship of the staff."

Andrew Gilligan's (apart from the obligatory self-defence):

"I am broadly pleased with the outcome of the inquiry, in that the BBC seems finally to have joined the rest of the country in rejecting the conclusions of Lord Hutton."

Not quite what I was thinking, but all interesting responses.