But Will They Backtrack? I don't think so.

Yep, Sharon has copped it from the media in Israel, and the BBC has found it a very convenient bandwagon- worth giving the wheels an extra spin. I can think of occasions on the BBC where Sharon has been depicted as a a 'godfather'-type (Orla Guerin referred to him as both 'godfather' and 'strongman' in one broadcast). That's not to mention a sudden interest in Israeli organised crime .

This has been unsettling at a time when it's important that Sharon retains the trust of westerners and indeed his own people.

When the BBC firmed up their earlier reports that charges against Sharon would be dropped for lack of evidence, I was not surprised (partly because I read the earlier, downbeat BBC reports, partly because it always seemed rather too convenient- too grubby a scenario to catch a powerful man like Sharon)

So after all the shenanigans (and here I mean the press', not Sharon's),

'Everybody expected Attorney General Meni Mazuz to announce that he didn't have enough evidence to prove Ariel Sharon guilty of bribery. Instead, Mazuz revealed that he has tons of evidence showing that there never was any bribery in the first place.'

The above quote is excerpted from an extraordinary 'mea culpa' from a Jerusalem Post journalist- 'The writer is a veteran journalist'- as he says:

'Here I want to apologize for having written that Sharon was a crook and that he should be indicted.'

And the lesson to be learnt by the media is:

'Clearly, we have to start being skeptical of justice officials and stop treating them like the children of light who are going up against the children of darkness – i.e., the politicians and their rich friends.

We should also restrain our tendency to tell news stories like morality plays – they can make for great reading, but real life is rarely that neat. Real life, we've been reminded, can surprise the hell out of you.'

Well, I am not sure the BBC are surprised, because they merely shifted gear in their anti-Sharon coverage:

'Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is in the clear over one bribery case, but another still hangs over him'. (yes, always a 'but' in BBC coverage of Israel, and 'another' is really not all that exciting, but it makes the gear shift smoother, doesn't it?)

And when the BBC says that 'Sharon Case Splits Israeli Press' the reality is that the split is over whether to congratulate Sharon or condemn the prosecutors who brought the case forward for raising it in the first place.

Absolutely no surprise that the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda was no.1 story across the BBC networks tonight. When I say dismissal I mean it- this fellow sums it up neatly, running through the options the commission faced when evaluating evidence they have acknowledged that Bin Laden did begin overtures with various countries including Iraq in 1994 (via Instapundit)

It really demonstrates the uniqueness of US politics where opposition to declared Government positions is accorded such a vantage point and platform.

Personally, as a sports fan familiar with cricket's controversial LBW laws and the infamous soccer 'offside' rule, I'd just like to query what how they define the word 'credible' in opposition to the term 'benefit of the doubt'. In cricket, the batsman (I will call him Saddam Bin Laden) is not to be given out if the ball pitched outside leg stump, if bat may have touched ball before impacting the pads, if the bounce may be too great etc etc(you get the picture). In soccer, a forward (I will call him Osama Hussein) is not offside until there is 'clear daylight' between himself and the last defender. I think these laws are there primarily to make the game more exciting as a contest. Is that what the 9/11 commission had in mind?

[Update: Instapundit advocates a closer look at the report. Apparently it does give some support to the notion of Saddam/Al Qaeda cooperation- just not over 9/11. To me though if you accept the one you'd be foolhardy to rule out the other, and if you emphasise that 9/11 was completely free of Saddam's involvement to the best of our knowledge you're seriously downgrading any allegation of collaboration. As in sport, it's no use having a slow-motion replay after the referee has made a decision- the opposition (ie. people like the BBC) have already taken advantage.]

Sharon's right BBC- live with it.

When venerable BBC journalist Jeremy Bowen talks of a 'facade of peace' in Israel I am curious, even suspicious (after all, the BBC has form on Israel). The reality of Israel over the last three years has been one of uncontrollable bloodshed. Peace there means the end of that, and that is what Sharon's policies have been designed for and what they have brought.

That's not good enough for Bowen though:

'Many Israelis believe that the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are starting to pay off. A few big bombs could change everything.'

Well, yes, except that all that would change would be perceptions. The reality would still be that Sharon had created an oasis of calm for Israel-proper to enjoy; that Sharon's policies when less than half complete stemmed the flow of civilian blood. Recent deaths on Israel's part have been military not civilian. They have taken place in Gaza, where Israel plans its withdrawal to take place. Palestinian deaths have resulted from action taken to interdict the terrorist capability in the areas where, for example, roadside bombs have been used to kill passing Israeli troops. So death has lost its sting in Israel itself, and that to me is a real kind of peace. Not the only kind, but the most essential and most basic to all others.

In Bowen's view the two sides are separated not by terrorist acts, but political inequality- which shifts responsibility away from terrorists and onto the Israelis, whose political power is buttressed by military strength. In that his is just a more eloquent summary along lines previously expressed by people like Jenny Tonge, who famously said that if she were in the place of the Palestinians she'd be bombing too (kind of undermining the many Palestinians who take a more peaceful view on principle). All this goes to show that the BBC, far from being impartial, take a strong view and don't hesitate to reinforce it at every opportunity.

Bowen goes on to say that Palestinians in Gaza are miserable, so the peace can't last. I say no: Palestinian misery (as well as that of irrational extremists in Likud) is a necessary phase to be passed on the way to a lasting peace. The illusory comfort blanket of an end to Israel's territorial integrity as a staging post to a Jewless Middle East is an unhygenic psychological prop the Pallies will have to cast away as they rocket giddily upward into the 21st century and the first world.

Just a small point:

You know how the BBC were hailing the local election and euro-election results for Labour as a protest vote against Iraq? Well, they're at it again:

'The prime minister said he was not "deaf to the voice of the electorate" but was convinced his decision to go to war in Iraq had been right.'

This direct link (or even indirect link) made between Iraq and Labour's performance is absurd. The Liberal Democrats- main opponents of the war- won a tiny increase in the percentage of the vote they gained; just over two percent from what was already a very low point. RESPECT only did 'respectably' in London. Both put together were overshadowed by an increase in vote share of almost four percent for the BNP! Meanwhile UKIP went from zeros to heroes (so to speak- they actually increased their share of the vote by ten percent to 16.1), and pushed those anti-war, 'three party politics' Lib Dems into fourth place in the overall poll.

I pointed out earlier that it would be somewhat convenient for Labour if their defeat was seen as a protest vote over Iraq, since it is potentially a transient phenomenon. Journalists, though, are supposed to see through that kind of thing and challenge it- not simply agree because it helps to vindicate their own positions.

US Commander at Abu Graib passes buck, shock. Tells all on BBC Radio Four.

T.H. quote of the day (re: EU elections):

'The political class has refined Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death my right not to have to listen to you say it. Are you still here?' -Mark Steyn

Good Grief this is Good:

'I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitler's fatwa — Mein Kampf — any more irrational than bin Laden's 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description — in the manner that a blood-sucking, stealthy, and nocturnal Dracula was always spookier than a massive, clunky Frankenstein...

In the European mind, and that of its aping American elite, the terrorists lived, slept, and walked in the upper aether — never the streets of Kabul, the mosques of Damascus, the palaces of Baghdad, the madrassas of Saudi Arabia, or the camps of Iran. To assume that the latter were true would mean a real war, real sacrifice, and a real choice between the liberal bourgeois West and a Dark-Age Islamofascist utopia. '- Victor Davis Hanson in NRO.

Hating Reagan and Bush with the BBC.

I know where Tom Carver stands on US politics: I've seen too many of his sneering performances on NewsNight (where Greg Palast has enjoyed so many of the 'triumphs' of his journalistic career) to doubt his conviction that US politics is skewed to the right, that America is riding for a fall etc etc.

Seeing him report the virtues of Reagan (albeit through second-hand sources) can mean only one thing: Carver is on the Bush-Bash trail.

And so it proves when Carver spectacularly lays into Bush:

'Can you imagine a website with George Bush's top 10 speeches?

Though denounced at the time as inflammatory, Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" remains an undeniably influential phrase, whilst George Bush's "axis of evil" already seems like a cheap rip-off with no coherent logic.'

The reason I find this startling (apart from the fact that my state sponsored broadcaster is using praise of a deceased US President to intervene crudely in the public perception of a sitting US President) is that the 'axis of evil' phrase and speeches were really of the same order as Reagan's 'evil empire' comments (not a 'rip-off' but the application of the same moral logic to a different, and fresh, and frightening challenge). To some extent this Bush approach, like Reagan's, was a necessary leap in the dark, given the unpreparedness of public opinion to accept 'enemies' rather than 'issues' and 'problems'. Carver reveals the fact that, like the critics of Reagan themselves, he just does not 'get' the Reagan legacy- or George W. Bush- at all.

To the rhetorical question posed by Carver I can say definitely 'yes, I can imagine a website devoted to GWB's best speeches.' Not only can I imagine it, I think that whether GWB is re-elected or not (the conviction underlying Carver's scepticism being that he will not be: 'A Los Angeles poll conducted the week of the funeral shows the gap between Bush and his opponent John Kerry continuing to widen, with Mr Kerry leading by seven points.') his speeches will be remembered because people will find things Bush said, that others ridiculed, to be correct, just as Reagan was correct- but Bush will be judged to have been more ambitious, and consequently more fundamentally right at a crucial moment in history. (Actually, this website listing important speeches from GWB already exists).

Meanwhile, at this time when Reagan is eulogised for his humility, Carver mocks Bush, Reagan's spiritual legatee, when he says 'There are more references to Reagan's phrase than those of Mr Bush on his own website'. Er, Tom (I feel like saying), isn't that kind of thing potentially the hallmark of a humble person?

And when a Beeb journalist says that Reagan was 'astonishingly successful at reaching out to Democrats' you know that means they think he was some kind of warlock in his way with the voters, but surprisingly he's dead so they can admit his wizardry now, and use it to bash loser Bush.

As for saying that 'George Bush, however, is loathed by Democrats.'- Roger Simon, Jeff Jarvis and co obviously don't count (his website quota is clearly limited to the Daily Kos and the DU). It was Jeff Jarvis who said recently 'We are not a nation divided... We're not red v. blue.'

But, fundamentally, praising Reagan is ok because what was reassuring about Reagan (in many people's view, his strong stand against the USSR which cemented US military/economic confidence and precipitated the end of the Cold War) was 'illusory or insubstantial'. Er, hang on a second. Wait a minute. Aside from being slanderously untrue, isn't that the same accusation that's often made these days by the Beeb against Bush's convictions and confidence over the 'so-called War on Terror'?

Naturally from a true-dyed BBC perspective the battle for international socialism never ended: they lost their red flagbearer, their broader vision suffered the illusion of failure; that's all. Like many British institutions they're so busy fighting the battles of the past, they don't notice where the battles of the present are unfolding- even when their own journalists are on the front line.

Now We Know For Sure.

In the light of what I posted below, it will probably seem hypocritical to point out that because UNMOVIC believe that Saddam was dismantling and exporting his weapons systems just before and during the Iraqi Freedom operation, and that the export process is still ongoing, it proves the 'Saddam was a threat' case for war, but if your cake is big enough I suppose you can have it and eat it at the same time.

Not a Great Conspiracy Theorist, me. That's to say that I generally don't believe in them.

I am convinced though that there was something sufficiently malign going on with the OIl-for-Food scheme that it casts the whole period between Gulf war I and Gulf War II in a different light, and would tranform our understanding of the run up to war were we appreciate things holistically.

This feature about a former UN Oil-for-Food official, Michael Soussan, is revealing in lots of little ways, and some big ones:

'The UN recently claimed it "learned of the 10 per cent kickback scheme only after the end of major combat operations" in 2003.

A lie, said Mr Soussan, recalling the hapless Swedish company that called in 2000, seeking UN help after being asked to pay kickbacks. The Swedes' plea was quickly lost in red tape and inter-office turf wars. After a "Kafka-esque" flurry of internal memos, the Swedes were told to complain to their own government.'

Widening The Lens.

One of the great motivations behind the expansion of the Internet and expecially the blogosphere has been to compensate for the 'sins of omission' of the big media. Obviously there's 'fisking' too, but undeniably with its international scope and its individual base, the blogosphere can reach the parts other newsgatherers can't.

Nevertheless, as Glenn Reynolds recently put it, he doesn't regard blogs as his primary news source- it's just that with the benefit of compare/contrast, immediate and time-specific access to (sometimes) informed speculation and (sometimes) eyewitness communication, the blogosphere has its advantages.

The big media is becoming aware of blogs though, and is aware too that, as with other news sources, their ability to pick up and use blogs and the internet will affect how well they are perceived as news organisations.

Anyway, Kerry at BBBC was right to commend the Beeb's Sarah Brown for covering the story of Iraqi blogs like Iraq the Model. I.T.M. has been growing on me the whole period of about six months I've been reading it. The three guys who write on it are intelligent, funny, mature, thoughtful, and above all, positive.

I couldn't help wondering though at this sudden flurry of interest from the Beeb in Iraq the Model. Could it be that they were spooked into action by Paul Wolfowitz, who quoted the I.T.M. writers approvingly in a a recent article (very much a follow up to GWB's Iraq policy speech ten days previously), published by WSJ 24 hours before Sarah Brown's article came online?

With the Internet, timing is everything. Which reminds me to say that timings on my blog offerings are very irregular as I often make a note of an article and only later write about it, and then forget to change the timings. Mea minor culpa.

Here's a Classic Example:

Politician bruised in polls faces anti-war journalist and knows what said journalist wants: an admission that the journalist's bee-in-the-bonnet issue was responsible for his party's bad election result. Also, conveniently, it makes defeat more manageable if it can be blamed on one transient factor.

So, the journalist takes the 'admission' and broadcasts it at the face value he was pretty keen on from the start (he's a Labour supporter, after all).

But, the reality is that the Tories did best in the local government elections, far outstripping the anti-war Liberals in seats gained from Labour, as well as councils (the Lib-Dems lost control of more councils than they won). And, as you probably know, the Tories supported the war in Iraq. Nice work, impartial BBC.

[Update: England's Sword has similar thoughts. Also, when I said 'seats gained from Labour' I was talking statistically, not geographically. All I mean is that the net gainers in terms of seats were Tories, who happened to be fairly solidly pro-war, whereas the net losers of seats were Labour, and the peacenik Libs were somewhere in-between. To look at BBC reporting though you'd think that Iraq was the issue above all. Ian Murray has some thoughts about where Iraq fits in to a broader picture that make sense to me.]

To turn now to another theme the BBC do biasedly, this article from Stephen Sackur looks like it's trying to soften the blow when it becomes clear that the Euro-elections are not only farcical in the UK- they're farcical in lots of countries.

Take the Czech Republic- a very nice country the BBC visit a great deal. Not sure if this is due to cheap flights or the loveliness that is Prague, or the world's finest cheap beer.

First of all I take issue with the notion that the Czechs were drinking 'cheap champagne' on May 1st. I'm pretty sure they'd be drinking (if not their gorgeous beer) the Czech alternative to champagne, which is delicious, tart and fruity, luminous and bubbly, but not entitled to call itself champagne, due to EU rules.

Also readers of the article will probably not notice the absence of mention of Vaclav Klaus, Czech president and euro-sceptic (or, as he put it recently, 'Euro-realist'). We hear plenty though from a representative of Vaclav Havel's POV- Havel is the most pro-EU Czech grandee around.

This source gives us some excuses in advance for a pitiful turnout or some odd elected representatives:

'"It took us so long to be accepted into the club, you made it so hard for us, and now we're wondering what all the fuss was about," he says. '
- which is one way of looking at it, rather like the old Heathite argument that our problem was not being in the EU [EC, EEC] from the beginning.

The source, Jiri Pehe, also gives us the optimistic note that 'we'll see our MEPS taking important decisions, and we'll benefit from the experience." '

Meanwhile Sackur is at pains to blame the usual suspects behind EU failure: lack of information and education.

He's also keen to explain away a possible eclipse of the ruling SDP, who are 'suffering a familiar case of the mid-term blues.' -except that in a country where democracy is not fifteen years old (since re-birth), I don't suppose 'mid-term blues' will be all that familiar.

Finally, Sackur tries to prepare us for the shock that 'unreconstructed communists' may be elected- to which my response was, they'll fit right in amongst the pinkos and the greens that will already be there.

After all,

'Nowadays the communists don't demonise the EU as a capitalist plot, they simply want to "remodel" it for the good of the workers.' - which is surely quite respectable Europolitical sentiment.

Add to this Sackur's vignette about aspiring Euro MP and expired porn star 'Dolly Buster', and we're ready to hear that

'in the absence of an informed debate on European issues the best way to rouse interest in this lacklustre campaign season is to provide novelty, human interest.
Some would call it opportunism. '-

At which point my antenna are twitching and I half expect to hear tell of Rob K.S. or Joan Collins.

But we end on a sober, if positive note. Sackur is clearly more impressed with the Euro Parliathingy than me when he says

'Being a player in the EU club can be challenging and rewarding, but rarely do MEPs or their constituents describe it as "fun". '

I suppose it's challenging for us and rewarding for the Euro MP's.

(Meanwhile more Reynolds- on the EuroParliathingy here)

Sick and Tired actually, of seeing Human Rights Watch get an automatic pass to creating a BBC headline when they haven't done anything to deserve it.

All they have done is pass comment on Abu Ghraib, and offered their opinion that it came about as a result of US policy post 9/11- a vast conspiracy theory encompassing Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and tactics for other suspected Al Qaeda detainees, if you will.

They have no new evidence; they have no revelations. They just produced a pastiche of press reports, briefings, off the record comments of intelligence staff, and frankly, tittle-tattle, to 'prove' that Abu Ghraib came about as a culmination of Bush policies. Then, in a lull in the US election run-up caused by John Kerry's calculated pause in campaigning, they 'challenged the government to prove' its innocence 'by releasing all relevant government documents'- and that won them a top place in the headlines.

Well, a lot of sensitive documents (like the Taguba report) have already reached the public sphere, and trials of miscreants have begun, and the whole Abu Ghraib thing brought shame on the media for their utter irresponsibility in magnifying every image, every document- yet despite all that the cases of abuse appear localised and limited.

When will the Beeb get the message: HRW may have many good hearted people. They may have many an Oxbridge, Yale or Harvard graduate working for them, and many others with colourful and rich life experience (in fact, as they put it, 'lawyers, journalists, academics, and country experts of many nationalities and diverse backgrounds') - but they are just an impressive kind of pressure group, nothing more.

Straight from the UN Special Commissioner, I had to mention this fascinating and entertaining post which tracks through the BBC's reporting of the conviction of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti. It takes them an entire article of explaining the views and social significance of Barghouti before they even half-mention the crimes he's been convicted of. I knew little about this until Max went to work on a long but worthwhile post.

Time to give Paul Reynolds another bash, I think.

Not that this article is wildly wrong about anything, but the smug superiority Reynolds affects in his writing always makes for errors and slantedness.

Like most BBC journalists Reynolds seems to share the opinion of Jeremy Paxman, quoting H.L. Mencken, that the proper relationship between journalist and politician is the same as between dog and lamp post. In that spirit Reynolds takes one phrase of Jack Straw's, notes the omission in it of the word 'interim' from the mention of the new Iraqi government, and infers that the 'policians' are trying to, in modern parlance, 'big up' the Iraqi interim government.

Another thing he does is give the anti-war perspective all the best lines and most of the airtime, the first bite at the cherry and the best. Quel surprise!

Aptly named Toby Dodge, admittedly labelled 'a critic of American and British policy in Iraq', gets to set his terms unchallenged. He's the one to define what 'multilateral' means- and it isn't a UN resolution, apparently; that was just a 'nod' from France and Russia.

When Dodge describes the new Iraqi (interim) government as a 'green zone phenomenon' it is helpfully explained for us by Reynolds as 'the sealed area in Baghdad from which the Coalition Authority and the Governing Council operate'- but not challenged. The fact that the first act of the 'green zone' government was to disband militias up and down Iraq seems to be beyond the BBC's own 'green zone'.

Come to that, it's another precious pot swaps with kettle moment as the BBC, famously bound to their Baghdad hotel bars and friendly former Baathist translators, accuse the Iraq government of insularity (accuse them by their silence).

The disbanding of militias would also appear to give the lie to this:

'Although technically sovereign, the interim government cannot in practice do a great deal, partly because the majority Shia did not want it to be able to take decisions in advance of an elected government. '

Reynolds concludes by saying that

'It can be seen that the interim government is a staging post, not the destination.'

and I'll conclude by saying that it ought to be obvious that no-one's pretending it was anything else- unless you're determined to piss on them whatever, that is.

More on the Gardner/Cumbers shootings.

The Belmont Club sums up why this blog is finding it so difficult to integrate poetry with its other concerns. Further link to 'six book' poet Judyth Hill here (with picture).

This as an American is shot dead in Riyadh- a further victim of strife in the Kingdom.

Just to make a note-

Fatalities in Iraq are a topic likely to be raised again in the news at some point soon.

To avoid fatalities in a place like Iraq where weapons are widespread, tribalism rife, and brutality lodged in the memories of all, is obviously difficult. That's not to mention all the military paraphernalia like mines and explosives that are literally lying around the country. Recently there were six deaths of Slovakian, Polish and Latvian troops in one explosion whilst attempting to defuse mines in Southern Iraq.

But anyway- one of the things that's received next to no attention in the media is the prevalence of US fatalities in one particular province of Iraq- Al-Anbar.

I keep seeing casualty reports from Centcom like this, and this, and this. All carry the same formulaic announcement of a death from hostile forces 'while conducting security and stability operations' in Al-Anbar.

This province is the one where the 'Wedding Party' was bombed- the one that borders Syria and in which the main arterial route from Syria to Baghdad passes through Fallujah (I don't discount casualties in Fallujah- which received plenty of attention- but US troops are not presently fighting there). The Belmont Club has identified Al-Anbar's borderland with Syria a crucial area of combat for US troops.

We will continue to hear about the security situation in Iraq being awful- but we won't get a breakdown of the violence taking account of its provinicial nature and the strategic reasons why violence is occurring in specific areas in particular forms. It's noticeable, for instance, that the Al-Anbar casualties are not usually roadside bombs (when they are we hear about it): evidently the terrorist insurgents there don't need the same clandestine tactics they use elsewhere in Iraq to have their intended effect. The reason for this has to relate to the Syrian border- and that's my guess why we are not hearing about it from the BBC.

Of course there could be other factors: in an interesting development reported today by Reuters, BBC journalists working in dangerous places may be getting bodyguards.

Hating Reagan with the BBC

According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, he'd be nowhere without the BBC:

'My most important investigations, all but banned from U.S. airwaves, were developed and broadcast by BBC Newsnight'

A self-styled 'friend' of Michael Moore, Palast shares Moore's affinity for publicity and sensationalism. Notice the typical 'all but' formulation (also a Moore favourite) in his claim of being banned in the US, which translates as something like 'no one in the States considered him stable enough to trust his reporting'. One supportive critic describes how

'he backs his investigative work with a colorful private dick/Sherlock Holmes persona, complete with breathless descriptions of the crimes of the powerful. His status as one of the new People's Pundits has been magnified by articles like this one in the alternative media, as well as through the support of cultural icons as disparate as Jello Biafra and Hustler magazine.' (Ed.- Hustler magazine?)

But, as Palast admits, his credibility derives from his BBC work, the latest of which was his 'Bush Family Fortunes' documentary, shown on BBC3 in June 03.

According to the above article,

'Palast says "Bush Family Fortunes" is the first in a series of BBC exposes, "culminating with a feature-length film, on the cowboy empire. We've now taken this weird mixing, of Bush family finances and our nation's foreign and domestic policies, to a new level, that is armed and dangerous." As he continues to broadcast truth to power on BBC-TV, we can only wonder when he will be allowed to do so back home, in the land of the free.'

But what's happened to the rest of the sequence of Palast's 'truth to power' documentaries? I haven't noticed them appearing on the main BBC channels, and that BBC3 documentary 'The Bush Family fortunes' I had taken to be a one-off.

However, I can tell what kind of a journalist Palast is, and the BBC have fostered, from his valediction for Ronald Reagan:

'I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses...all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.' ...

'Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead.

Killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, good-bye and good riddance.'

More Horrific Detail about what befell BBC journalist Frank Gardner and his cameraman Simon Cumbers at the hands of terrorists. According to Reuters and eye-witness accounts the Westerners were separated from their Saudi escorts before being shot, and Gardner was shot, apparently, in the feet and pelvis, and then left lying in the street to remonstrate with passers by that he was 'a muslim', and that they should help him.

Let's hope Gardner comes through it. The whole episode gives another unwanted, unasked-for glimpse of how deep the hatred runs- with targets and methods that symbolise the spiritual contempt that they have for the unbelievers. (almost forgot- via LGF)

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'.