A Great Point Raised

Aside from all the schamozzle over forged documents, this former Kuwaiti minister make some excellent points about fatwas, the legal declarations taken so seriously in the Islamic world: Why a fatwa against Salman Rushie? Why no fatwa against Osama?

Following the Trail

Belmont Club was interested, not so much in the documents which were easily nitpicked into a laughing stock from all directions (I'd link to one if there were a definitive method), but in the power of the online world to hunt down the false and the hollow.

Hugh Hewitt, as part of a long, link-filled post, tracks the story and its reception in the big media.

It seems the Boston Globe, like the BBC, decided to run the story about Bush's failure to meet National Service requirements without any acknowledgement of the growing forgery storm. Since the BBC are so keen on updates it would seem odd they haven't bothered either to follow up or alter it. Odd too when there are authoritative media pursuing the forgery line in separate stories.

Willing Dupes

Why was our national broadcaster so keen to get taken in by a likely fraud? When and how will they begin to retract their unambiguous presentation of the story as hard news? Why did they imply at the beginning of their smearticle that the documents came from the Whitehouse ('The documents released by the White House show the suspension also resulted from his failure to take his annual medical test as required.') when the Whitehouse was just passing on what had been passed to them, as the Beeb smearticle notes in its third from last paragraph?

John Podhoretz explains the controversy and how the accusatory evidence against Bush is unravelling online, and suggests why certain people were such suckers for this one. I am reminded just how reluctant and slow the BBC were to report the SwiftVet allegations until long after it was being reported by 'respectable' (I use the term advisedly) outlets.

Chirac's Beauty Sleep

Of course there's nothing particularly attractive about the sleazy French Presidential incumbent, so he needs all the help he can get. The BBC report it, but it's curious how they miss out the interesting angles- such as why this Kyoto-loving US-basher was content to stream pollution across the European sky-line. Maybe the wind direction was easterly. Capt. Ed covers the hypocrisy question, and adds a spot of bad economic news for Kerry.

Belmont Club Takes Stock:

'If anyone is hoping Iraq will become an infamous, unmitigated catastrophe, don't hold your breath... If anyone is hoping that America will be able to leave Iraq in a couple of years to the tune of brass bands marching over a carpet of strewn flowers, don't hold your breath either.'

This BBC report is interesting and more or less confirms this 'between two extremes' analysis of Iraq. The women interviewed have mixed stories but on balance their lives have improved as a result of the Iraq war.

Meanwhile, this military crash in the Czech Republic is tragic, but if there can be one brighter thought it is that the number of reported British dead equals the number of reported British military deaths in Iraq over the last six calendar months. That kind of thing makes me livid with those British people, usually media, George Galloway or Tories on the make, who want to go on about failure in Iraq, impeaching Blair etc.

How's this for an opening line:

'‘He is sedated,’ said Bill Clinton’s heart surgeon on Tuesday. ‘But he is arousable.’ I’ve never doubted it.'

Is it just me, or is this the best article in Steyn's long illustrious collection.

The Baath News

Via Powerline comes this disturbing tale of Baathist resurgence in the Sunni triangle. This confirms my view that as much as anything we are fighting ideologies in Iraq. Baathism is a descendant of National Socialism- every bit as vicious, with pseudo-spiritual leanings deriving from the ideology of Michel Aflaq, who pioneered Baathism in the the middle of the last century.

It's my view we should not be surprised or discouraged at the resilience of Baathism in Sunni parts of Iraq. Baathism is what made Iraq the place of despair that it was under Saddam, and we should see that Saddam was just the High Priest of Baathism in the latter era (Aflaq having blazed a trail earlier). The High Priest is merely the servant of something greater, a role similar to that claimed by the Pope- whose image we see so much but who would always claim merely to be an intercessor rather than a deity himself.

Part of the difficulty we've had over Iraq was defining our enemy. Understanding the true nature of Baathism and how it ties into other Arab/Islamic ideology helps explain what our enemy is.

I've found three useful links to understanding Aflaq. First, the encyclopedia entry, giving all the basic details (though take the notion that Aflaq was 'a staunch Christian' with pinch of salt). Second, an excellent article that appeared in the Weekly Standard several years ago entitled 'Saddam's Brain', which though excellent was probably a little too exotic for anyone to appreciate fully at the time (after all, we'd specialised in trying to ignore the world's despots since 1945 until Saddam rang our bell once too often). Third, and finally, and related to the KnightRidder article Powerline highlighted, here's a recent web posting from some Aflaq fanatic of the Saddamite resistance.

In the light of this, it's interesting to recall this speech from GWB which recognised the battle against Islamofascism (and, for all its secularist tendancies, Baathism really does lend itself to a partnership with a sacrificial kind of religious extremism) as part of the legacy of the 20th century's conflicts. What's needed it seems it to translate our understanding of these things into an urgency and seriousness on the ground which recognises the imperative of winning every battle there is to fight- rather than throwing the straws of military excursions into the winds of history.

With the serendipity which the blogosphere so often conjures, I found this article from Austin Bay useful to set alongside the thoughts above.

Oi, Carver- Noooo!

Not again please. Not content with his risible performances on Newsnight, Tom Carver is making errors galore as he attempts what presumably he considers sharp political analysis of the race for the Presidency.

When a journalist begins his article 'John Kerry had it all worked out. A decorated war hero against a Texan gunslinger who had bungled the first war he had chosen to fight. - apparently ignoring as though it didn't exist the invasion of Afghanistan- he has to be either foolish or incredibly sloppy in his thinking. Ok, perhaps Kerry is that sloppy, but it's too rich to have a BBC journalist aping him.

Carver specialises in sarcastic, colourful insults and slanders- which, on Newsnight, he delivers with such a motor-mouth it almost enters the mind subliminally.

Here though we get to take it in slowly as he calls the Bushies 'Yalie frat-boys' and characterises the Republican campaign as butchery. It seems to have, er, escaped his attention that Kerry has been re-christened the Kerrikazi candidate in recent days, being considered a craftsman of his own brand of self-slaughter by many. Kerry was 'lulled' into making his war service central to the Democrat convention, says Carver defensively.

Carver gets worse as he warms up. He says, wrapping two insults into one sentence, 'Americans, always keen to move on to the next thing, are running out of outrage over Iraq.'

So Americans have that famed 'short attention span', and are too shallow to care? This is supposed to be an analysis?

He says 'Iraq's currency as a political weapon is declining.' - something which is as crudely put as it could be. Did it occur to Carver to consider that Americans will warm towards candidates who do not use Iraq as a political weapon but as a solemn undertaking, and that this is really the Dems' problem? That the currency of Iraq will increase when the Democratic candidate shows incontrovertibly he is serious about it?

Carver is probably right when he says that Kerry needs to concentrate on attacking Bush's economic record, but there are several problems with this analysis too. No-one to my knowledge has really given Bush any credit for his management of a largely inherited recession, or made allowance for the massive blow that 9/11 struck to the US economy, or accepted the costs of homeland security and war with Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary evils, and then gone on to say what beyond those things Bush has done wrong. No-one has demonstrated that Kerry will be more fiscally prudent himself should he have the chance. Even where, who knows, the Dems may have a case, it seems like they haven't reached the starting blocks yet.

Coincidentally enough, it would seem, nor has Carver.

Melanie Phillips is back- and making excellent points.

There may be something faintly odd about the way she stands apart from her fellow journalists and lambasts their standards, but if she weren't making those points, from a British perspective who would be?

I love Melanie's attack on Sir Max Hastings. Barely tolerable when a successful, influential journalist in the early nineties, I've totally maxed-out on Hastings. His inability to articulate even basic distinctions in his blind criticism of Tony Blair and George Bush is combined with a sneering superior tone which makes him like a double migraine expressed in text.
Particularly ridiculous is his attack on Bush, who he says 'indulges both Ariel Sharon and Putin in any means they see fit, to suppress those who use terrorist methods, without heed to the need for diverse political responses, as well as sensitive military tactics'.

Lumping these two together is absurd. Sharon's policies have achieved some demonstrable success, and Sharon is a figure with both a strategy and unarguable democratic (as opposed to demagogic) credentials. Furthermore, Bush has limited influence over Putin, as the Russian opposition to the Iraq war showed. Oliver Kamm has amplified my views on Sharon's strategy (something I haven't pointed out till now). I'd characterise Sharon's plan as having a defence, an offence, and a whole game strategy- as an American sports coach might put it.

The main thing I agree with Melanie on however is that mindless attacks on public policy are effectively suicidal when all the time Jihadis are looking for how they can grab the initiative in enforcing fear and panic in the West. Hasting's Kerryesque mantra of using all the levers of politics and diplomacy, intelligence and special forces, is about as useful as taking nail-clippers to a tree infested with ivy. In fact you need secateurs- which combine raw power with a satisfying delicacy.

I think we need to support Putin in his attempt to build a political structure in Chechnya (after all, they just had a kind of election). How support can be given is another matter, but anything to increase the sense of hope of moderate Chechens. While Russia has been fairly criminally heavy-handed in Chechnya, they are facing problems that result from the diminution of post-Soviet Russian power, and the upsurge of potentially corrosive criminality, nationalism and religious fascism. that can't have been easy. All of these facts are evidenced by this Command Post article from Alan E. Brain (best to ignore the comments, I think).

The trouble with Chechnya, it seems, is that poverty and the desire for independence are not the only forces at work, and not the most coordinated. Islamism is the strongest force, because the best coordinated, and uses the others to rally its vicious ideology- because unlike the the first two it has a live ideology- unlike, say, poverty whose ideology, communism, is a fallen idol. Thus, according the Command Post and Dan Darling at Winds of Change (a post I linked to earlier, but a good one which really illuminates some things), the conflict has morphed gradually into a religious one- which suits Islam the religion of Jihad.

One thing I am sure of: Sir Max isn't helping.

[You'll have to forgive me, I seem to have done a lot of writing just recently]

Russian Lies (companion piece, I suppose to Truth and Russia)

An interesting article in the WaPo rounds up the lies that were told by Russian officials about the numbers of hostages being held at Breslan, and the way in which President Putin is distancing himself from the liars.

Greater honesty in Russian foreign and security policy would be a real step forward, and the overwhelming tragedy of Breslan might just focus their minds on being effective rather than pretentious. What would be really impressive next time round (which in itself is a dreadful thought) is if the Russians were to request the involvement of some of incredibly fine special forces that can be found in Britain, America, Israel or Australia.

Interestingly, Captain Ed reports an AP report that Russia has welcomed Israel's offer to share its experience in combatting terrorism.

Meanwhile, The Command Post reports on the Australian Intelligence links that have helped Russia to track down several al-Qaeda terrorists who have been liasing with Chechen rebels.

Let's hope that, rather than P.R. at a time of crisis, this represents a sea-change for Russian policy.

Although the terrorists made Breslan school a death trap, had the true numbers of children involved been known to the West a different outcome might have been foreseeable- assuming that honesty might lead to cooperation, which might have brought the world's finest anti-terror soldiers and theorists to Breslan. The tragic thing is that the Russians appeared so sensitive to criticism of heavy-handedness from previous incidents that they waited and dissembled for far too long, thinking they should spend quality time in talks with the killers- when all that did was give time for boobytapping to proceed apace, atrocities to multiply, and thirst to drive the whole collection of hostages and terrorists into a state of nervous breakdown, preparing the scene for its final stampede of death. I think they should have gone in within twelve hours- with of course the SAS at the fore.

Irony Bites.

Justin Webb of the BBC (a man, I should first of all point out, of some talent) tells us he has given an endorsement of George W. Bush, sort of.

He intended his remark to be patronising, but the Bush campaign thought it would play well amongst its base, so into the campaign literature it went:

"Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W Bush".

This highly amusing situation, given Webb's likely political persuasion, raises an interesting possibility: maybe the Bush campaign are taking the BBC's ludicrous cynicism and irony and getting their own small revenge by using it to help the President out. Or maybe the Bush campaign think BBC journalists might actually say something positive about W. with a straight face- unlikely I feel.

Perhaps it was out of irritation that Webb got all sulky his latest article.

Commenting on the indifference of New Yorkers to Bush's convention, he says

'And these folks, as the president would say, are the ones who are about to be incinerated if John Kerry gets in and the French take over the defence of the US. Such ungratefulness'

While mildly amusing, it has the fault of being utterly false in reflecting what 'the president would say'. Once more an obsession is revealed with pinning the criticisms of what they would call 'proxies' (in this case clearly the target would be Zell Miller) to Bush himself.

Webb goes on to demonstrate the Leftist's view of political campaigning from the Right.

He talks of 'the steely way in which the Republican party is capable of using anything to its advantage', and how 'Senator Kerry has discovered that words uttered in the past can be brought to life and used as the party sees fit.'

The first statement conjures something like a 'rat among the garbage' analogy. The trouble with the second statement (as everyone knows) is that it was the challenger who brought his previous sayings to life by deliberately playing on his service record and patriotism. He 'reported for duty' after thirty years, like those Japanese soldiers on Pacific Islands who refused to believe that World War Two was over.

The only thing the Republican party has going for it, according to Webb, is the will to win. He talks quite blithely about 'all that has gone wrong', without stating what those things might be- as though they were self-evident. However, to this reader it is only evident that Bush's 'mistakes'- whether you mean Iraq, the economy, or 'mis-speaks'- have no basis in any established consensus.

The undercurrent of Webb's dismissal of the Bush record is that the Repugs. will only win by playing dirty.

To underline this theme he closes with what seems a deeply questionable smear on the Bush campaign:

'At the beginning of the year, one of the president's backroom fixers is alleged to have muttered of John Kerry's military service: "By the time we've finished with him people won't know whose side he fought on."

At the time it seemed an implausible boast. But now, not so far-fetched.'

So, once more the BBC attempt to influence the public perception of criticism of Kerry (with a strong implication of nailing Bush to the SwiftVet masthead) when it's acknowledged by Webb himself that this assertion cannot be backed up. He is relying on some of those 'obvious facts' again. Webb could have redeemed himself somewhat by saying that holding that Senator Kerry was on both sides of the conflict in Vietnam is far from a ridiculous viewpoint, but he passes that opportunity in favour of still more crude propaganda.

The irony is that they seem unaware how their sneers and smears are helping President Bush's re-election campaign, even though in this case Webb is pointing out the unconscious help his mockery has given Bush already, not only politically, Webb insists, but to 'make a buck'- a reference to the DVDs which featured his remark.

The attempt to make evil incarnate appear in the image of GWB is truly like the labour of Sisyphus- it's tough, it's futile, and the more you do it and fail the more you are forced to try again.

At Biased-BBC earlier I noted that the BBC and New York Times seemed to have much in common. I wonder if we could say that the BBC too has fallen victim to the Times' patent conspiracy theory meltdown. (an excellent post from The American Thinker at this link)

Update: I just had to insert, as Chrenkoff did in a similar post, this superb analysis of the Chechnyan terrorist situation from Dan Darling of Winds of Change. It really helps bring you up to speed on who is doing what and why in the region.

Cruel Philosophy

More from that Omar Bakri I mentioned yesterday (he probably feels set up but that is no excuse)- this time how British schoolchildren are fair game for terror.

Meanwhile, I'd been wondering how I would apportion blame for the Beslan school massacre. While I was wondering Mark Steyn was writing with typical clarity for The Australian:


'The Muslims have a better case in Chechnya than they do in the West Bank, Kashmir or any of the other troublespots where the Islamic world rubs up against the infidels. But that said, as elsewhere, whatever the theoretical merits of the cause, it's been rotted from within by the Islamist psychosis.'

Live-blogging Bush

I steered around talking about Bush's speech. It was very good, I thought, and more crafted than most I've heard from him. I thought it very skilfully put together. But anyway, enough of what I thought- I can't vote, I just admire the man and think the world can work with him to overcome its challenges.

What I think is that I've found two of the cleverest and most insightful live-blogs that were around last Thursday, and I gather them here for your reading pleasure (and mine).

Liberal Larry, you can imagine, gave a nuanced, Liberal's analysis of what was naturally a one-dimensioned and dogmatic speech.

The VodkaPundit, by contrast, made it a kind of liquid symposium between him and the President. In other words, he played a drinking game with GWB's speech. I tell you though I've seldom if ever read a better personal response to anything.

Both commentaries recommended for outsiders like me, and people without time to read the speech or play it back on video, and those who feel less serious about politics than the pundits are.

Memrible stuff

Ok, today it looks like I'm in a punning mood, but here are two interesting things from the MEMRI website:

Firstly, what will we do about this lot of loons who want to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 in London? I think someone oughtn't to be allowed to live here, Mr Omar Bakri.

Secondly, Amir Taheri addresses an Arab audience on security in Iraq:

'"The truth is that Iraq did not enjoy security under Saddam Hussein either. This is because while there can be no freedom without security, there is also no security without freedom.

"Were the Juburi tribes secure under Saddam when he sent his special units to massacre them as an act of political revenge? How much security did the Shammar tribes enjoy when Saddam seized two-thirds of their land to distribute among his henchmen? And was it to give them security that Saddam transferred thousands of families from Mosul and Kirkuk in the north to central and southern Iraq? And these were all Sunni Muslims who were supposed to provide the principal base of his regime. As for the Shi'ites and the Kurds, the security they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein is symbolized by the mass graves that dot the Iraqi countryside, and the corpses strewn in the streets of Halabja after a chemical attack. And was it because they did not like security that almost four million Iraqis fled into exile during the Baathist rule?"

A Good Standard

A number of good articles in the Weekly Standard at the moment.

Gerard Baker reflects on the cravenness of Michael Howard in attacking Blair over Iraq. He calls it worthy of John Kerry- and he's right. Neither of these two men have realised that the present time is one of those times when a Government of national unity is what the public really want. The public think they're sure there is a challenge to rise to, and they're concerned to see their politicians rise to it (and events seem to confirm this view). To do that it's necessary to recognise some baseline rules, including the one that a real leader must disavow short term gains in the interests of solidarity against gathering threats.

Kerry's attempts to treat national security as a matter of presentation- in his case of presenting his Vietnam credentials hopelessly one-sidedly- and Howard's attempts to play poll-chasing with Blair's justifications for the Iraq war, both trivialise the nature of the debate, and leave people angry.

Both Kerry and Howard want to freeze public opinion in a mode of scepticism about the Iraq war, but the Islamic threat which emanates from the Middle East keeps on morphing. Fortunately its ability to morph from that region is limited by our presence on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the aggravation this involves people are finding it comforting to have our foot poised beside the umbilical cords of terrorism. So Kerry and Howard need to change tack- are morally obliged to change tack- but they are mesmerised by the 'silver bullet' of Stop the War populism.

David Gelernter makes a bold assertion of Bush's place in history. In a skilfully crafted article (i.e. special post-convention delivery) he makes a powerful case that Bush has grasped the force of change that's making history today. [slightly edited]

It was Bismarck who said

"A statesman...must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of His garment."

Gelernter says this about the President's opponents:

'Reactionary liberals want everything to stay just the same. All trends must continue just as they have been. (Judges must continue to subvert democracy; Congress must continue to create new entitlements.) We must treat the new totalitarians just the same as we once were forced to treat the Soviets--gingerly. Our goal must be not to liberate their victims, not to defeat and disarm their military machines, but to arrange détente with their dictators--just as we once did. (Détente with Saddam was French and Russian policy until we screwed things up.) Our antiquated pre-cell phone, pre-microchip laws and regulations must stay just the same (kill the Patriot Act!), and we must sit still and wait politely for the next terrorist outrage, just as we always have.'

Truth and Russia

I'm sure most of us were steeled to find out the facts about the violent conclusion to the hostages situation in an Ossetian school. The tragedy seemed inevitable, and although there were pictures of a number of children milling around outside the school compound there were never enough of them to make me really optimistic. One crucial thing that the BBC to their credit reports bluntly- nine of the terrorists (I'll call them that) were reportedly Arabs.

Unfortunately, those Russian dolls that are so available to tourists have a prophetic quality about them. Just when you think you've arrived at the real thing you shake it and realise there's another reality concealed beneath. Russia (and district- a 'difficult' thing to define) may have changed a lot since 1989, but unfortunately the culture where life is clumsily lost runs very deep. That's sad for us all as we have to watch little moppets suffer at the hands of self-proclaimed martyrs.

Update (10pm BST): I thought it would happen that the BBC report would be updated to indicate a growing knowledge of the casualties involved. When I posted it said 'at least 150' killed. Now it says 200- and leads us to expect it will need to be updated again.

The Command Post has some more telling details. Maybe I should forget about any clumsiness on the part of the authorities considering the nature of the injuries.

Taking Stock of al-Sadr

After al-Sadr's withdrawal from Najaf, the Coalition forces and Iraqi forces have been taking stock of what the young criminal got up to while he organised a sadistic three week party in what he no doubt considers his father's house- the Imam Ali Mosque.

The American Thinker reports from sources describing the corpses that resulted from a killing spree Sadr and chums embarked on amongst local people while holed-up there. There are mixed reports of up to 200 deaths and foul methods of torture used before or during execution.


IraqtheModel reported some of these things at the time of the uprising (I wish you luck in finding them, but I distinctly recall being shocked while reading about them there), when there was virtual silence about them in the media here.

What this highlights is the kind of man Sadr is- a spoilt brat who takes pleasure in bestial killing in enforcing his will. Although the numbers of his victims may be unclear, his thuggishness is not. He reminds me of a religious version of Uday Hussein- and when you think about it both had powerful fathers on different sides of a traumatised society.

These are not the kind of people the US or the West can allow to dominate in Iraq. Like Uday Hussein, there's little indication that al-Sadr has popular support, and who could blame the people for that? What I hope these reports will help do is continue to discredit al-Sadr in Iraq and in the media. I'd be very sanguine should he meet with an accident, happier still to see him appear in a dock, but it's enough if people like al-Sadr are excluded from significant positions in Iraq's future.

Cribbing from a man of letters.

Yes, once again I'm reduced to lifting bits for Mark Steyn's letters page that are especially fine.

Once again I find a viewpoint I've expressed here expressed there, and I'm led to think once again that a drinks party with Steyn and co. would be a perfect night out.

'If Kerry implodes - as I predict he will - the opportunity to truly put Vietnam behind us will finally be available. Not just the war, but the 30 plus years of liberal elites arrogantly claiming that they were "right" about Vietnam and the concomitant cancerous effect the perpetuation of that myth has upon our national security and political discourse. I few days ago I watched the John O'Neill/John Kerry debate on Dick Cavett in 1971. Two things stood out; First, Kerry clearly did not view communism as a worse outcome for South Vietnam (he hasn't changed). Second, he claimed that our pullout would not result in a bloodbath of innocent civilians in Southeast Asia, as O'Neill rightly predicted (Kerry cavalierly admitted that there may be several thousand "political assassinations" of South Vietnamese officials after we pulled out, but that that would be no big deal in his opinion in light of how oppressive he found the South Vietnamese to be).

...

We can no longer ignore the fact that Kerry and people of his anti-war ilk favored and articulated an approach to dealing with Vietnam (using virtually any means, however repugnant, available to them) that resulted in the death of millions of innocents, the spread of communism, the rise of self-doubt and self-loathing in our foreign policy and military institutions as well as the body politic, and a cultural decline in this country that endangers our greatness.'

-Jim Arabia, San Diego, California

Update: Powerline have a really good take on why Vietnam isn't put to rest in Kerry's candidacy (aside from the fact that Kerry lit the blue touchpaper himself).

Zell's Zinger

It was one heck of a speech- best if you get to see it on video, but powerful on the written page.

The BBC trashed it as 'nasty', but they've never seen all the many expressions of Democratic 'righteous anger' against Bush- such as that from Al Gore- as 'nasty', so I don't see why they should start now with Miller's indignation against Kerry.

As a Brit I'm just glad that there are people in the US like Zell Miller prepared to stand up aganst the odds and put their experience and their hearts into dealing with the problems facing the West.

If Zell was motivated by anger at the past, as he hinted, that's a lot better than looking for future political/monetary advantage- though whether a man in his early 70's can be all that concerned about his future career is debatable. Ask Bobby. Or to be fair, Rummy.

All in all I can't think of a better person to have been endorsing Bush last night.

The BBC sneered that he looked bad compared to Barak Obama's speech. Oh really? If it was Barak endorsing Bush the only questions on the lips of journalists would have been how much he was paid or what he would be getting. The fact that it seems absurd to ask that question of Miller speaks volumes for how good it was to have him there. He didn't renege on his Democratic roots; he just endorsed Bush (which is of course, really nasty).

The BBC later reported what will doubtless be the standard Democrat line, that it was "a night of angry old men". That's not really so clever coming from the camp of the botoxified Brahmin in his sixties running on the strength of his 'long political experience' and his time in Vietnam.

Update: Michael Barone has an excellent and thoughtful take on why Miller's (but also Cheney's) speech hit the mark. If it seems like it was o.t.t. to you, this is a good one to read.

Wretchard's Great Lines.

Admittedly they're not all Wretchard's, but he certainly has some profound and true words to say regarding the current wave of terror that's battering the psyches of both the Russian and the French peoples.

I've only scratched the surface of the French existentialists, but Wretchard's quote from Camus helps me appreciate why people delve deeper:

"on the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence -- through a curious transposition peculiar to our times -- it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself."

Or, as Wretchard puts it, 'tranferrence of guilt is terrorism's greatest lie'.

Going from the negative to the positive, he says 'Civilization cannot hang back but must step forward, if not for love then for survival.'

These are great lines, worth mulling over.

At the sharp end, meanwhile, here's the latest from the BBC on the Russian crisis and the French hostage situation. Listening to Caroline Hawley earlier it sounded as if the BBC were gearing up to ask why the French were so much better at dealing with terrorism. The only response I could think of was 'we'll see'.

New Links- as the Frenchman does the rounds.

I've put a lot of new links in the sidebar- and taken a couple out which seem to be obsolete (they'll go straight back if matters alter).

One of them is No Pasaran, stomping ground of the inimitable W who previously highlighted the merde in France. As you can imagine it's a good place for a forthright look at the French hostage crisis.

The BBC are reporting Barnier's vist to Al Jazeera in Qatar- which says much of what you need to know about the contacts Al Jazeera fosters. They're also reporting the Pope's intervention, so it can be seen that all the world and his wife are butting in on the situation. I don't think I've mentioned how sickening it is when so much energy can be expended for the sake of two journalists (much as I wish their safety), but so little ado was made for the 12 Nepalese that were murdered recently. Still, I suppose the same could be said about the traumas of Sudan- maybe the rebels in Darfur need to get hold of a couple of French journalists (not that I'd wish their harm).

Oil Glut?

Fascinating news from Mexico which reaches me via the indispensible American Thinker. Apparently an oil company has discovered reserves there which rival some of the largest in the world. Take that, Islamofascist strategists.

Minor bias?

Public opinion rests like an unbroken egg on a kitchen work surface- tilt the surface just a little and you can watch the egg slide and ultimately break.

That's what politicians try to do, and the media are in an irresistible position to join in.

Those are the premises I start with when I look for media bias.

This BBC information piece has been edited as many times as you could conceive of- earlier it juxtaposed Arnie's praise for Bush's singlemindedness with the claim that Bush had contradicted himself over winning the war on terror. Currently it majors on arrests outside the RNC, and the accompanying 'tense atmosphere'. In either case it sows a real doubt in the mind.

[I'm re-reading it, later on, and it has really cleaned up quite a bit. It now strikes me as not unbalanced, although there are little tweaks of weirdness and repetition by which the BBC often means to unsettle or turn-off readers. This raises an interesting point: the online media is more like television that it is like the print media. How many tens of thousands may have read the earlier versions? Yet what we have been left with is better than what many/most people will have read- rather like the way TV news sometimes cleans up a story as they go from the early morning hours to peak-time.]

The BBC opinion piece I pointed out earlier may seem friendly enough, but in fact it highlights the stereoptyped Arnie over the real one. It highlights the stage management of the Republicans over their message, and it makes the RNC look like a simple PR exercise. Of course there are elements of that in all political campaigning- but there's a trade-off between looking good and being good. I think the Republicans would readily admit there is no point looking good if you can't be good when it counts, yet this aspect of their platform is dismissed as window dressing.

By way of contrast, here is a news piece about John Edwards' speech in July. There's only one negative comment in its entirety, and even that is very much of the 'that was the bad news, here is the good' variety.

Update: Here's another article - I think, on balance- to add to the BBC's negativity cache, this time about Arnold and co., that displays an obsession with 'packaging' and an interesting definition of 'moderate'.

Sour taste to BBC's Convention cocktail.

I'm going to try and put together a post on BBC bias against the Republican convention- assuming I continue to detect it- at BiasedBBC.

In the meantime a couple of observations.

Even Kos thought that Rudi's speech was the highlight of last night's events, yet the BBC never featured it prominently- and certainly never pinpointed any of the good lines. They preferred to concentrate on John McCain because of the political intrigue (negative) they could squeeze from it.

One picture of Guiliani came in this most slanted of opinion pieces from Rob Watson. Guiliani is introduced through a prism of negativity-

'They came here to see the other side get bashed, and tonight John Kerry got a good bashing.
And he got that bashing from a man seen as a moderate Republican, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.'.

Although the excellent convention bloggers at Powerline lend that analysis some modest support, they make it clear that was only a part of Rudi's charm, and a much more rational critique than 'bashing' could ever be (note the threefold repetition in the BBC article).

This was a good speech , with much that was moderate about it in the best sense, which deserved better than it got from the BBC.

Franco-Crawling

I know I'm following the Instapundit in linking to the Belmont Club's commentary on the French crusade to find someone to bribe in the Middle East who will then release their journalists, but I did post on this earlier. Wretchard shines an interesting sidelight on the BBC's coverage.

My money's still on the French being able to find a way out of this: the Egyptians and co. have got to be able to show that their friendship is worth something. Another thing is that watching the videotape of the Frenchmen expressing their wish for their country to back down on the question of headscarves, I was surprised how relaxed they seemed, as though they were fairly sure of their position as political pawns. On the other hand, the group apparently holding them has a grisly record. I hope I'm right for their sakes.

I was very interested to read Prime Minister Allawi's comments- very much saying the kind of thing we can't say at this moment. This will be a part of the diplomatic dance too.

The J.P. has an editorial on the subject which says effectively that solidarity among the French is admirable, but where's their solidarity with all countries facing terrorism? Quite a pointed message, coming today.

Here's another tragedy I should have mentioned- one which doesn't make the French hostages prospects look any better.

Move Along Folks, nothing to see here.

BBC covers MTV awards, and it's the kind of article I scan for names I might feel the need to have heard of at some future point. It's oh so forgettable, and in case we might seek compensation by looking for signs of controversy, Auntie helpfully concludes:

'Last year's MTV Awards attracted controversy after Madonna and Britney Spears shared a kiss onstage - however this year's show was broadcast with a time delay of several seconds to avoid further controversy.'

So there, young man! That'll teach you to go looking for titbits where you oughtn't!

But woah there, Beeboids, for heark! Do I hear the mirthful sound of Kerrys being booed?

Update: Bush daughters got booed too, but since they sensibly taped their piece in advance it was less noticeable. Still, I thought the Kerrys were supposed to be the cool ones?

Boris's Bunk

Mumbling MP and uber-pundit Boris Johnson, has, surprise, surprise, written a book. Well, a pot-boiler actually- which Boris is hawking to the public using his long connection with the high-circulation Daily Telegraph, where an extract appeared today.

What can I say from the extract?

It's so Boris you'll never be able to tell which character is talking. The two characters featured significantly are the Terrorist (clever Boris) and the President (bumbling Boris). The terrorist has to come from Wales because while Boris is happy with depicting a British person embroiled in Islamofascism, he can't stretch culturally to depicting the typical terrorist from Saudi or Egypt. The President meanwhile reminded me of Boris's own self-parody on HIGNFY, with a Texan accent.

Perhaps I'm out of condition when it comes to reading our latter-day pulp fiction, but I kind of considered that an author should make the effort to take us beyond his own mannerisms and narrow experiences, and into the world beyond. The excerpt I read sounded for all the world like the author was a bit too lazy to take me anywhere but Parody-Central.

Or maybe it's just that I'm out of charity because Boris has been doing idiotic things like supporting Gilligan and advocating Blair's 'impeachment'.

Don't hurt us- we're good.

Back to the French again- this time because of a situation that's been forced on them: the two French journalists abducted in Iraq.

The thing that's interesting me is the grandstanding of Chirac and De Villepin.

Chirac says "The whole nation is gathered together because what's at stake is the lives of two French people, the defense of freedom of expression, and also the values of our Republic,"

De Villepin says "France is the country of the French revolution, of human rights," ... "France has never stopped fighting for the freedom of all, for tolerance and the respect of the human being."

When in a tight corner, the French politicians appear to hide behind abstract notions that are highly arguable in the circumstances. Being 'Land of the Free' did not save America from 9/11. Will the French be able to hide behind self-congratulatory rhetoric? What will they give to get their journalists back in one piece? What will Foreign Minister Michel Barnier's approach be as he heads to the region? Apparently he is going to 'coordinate' efforts to secure their release, which presumably means talk to their friends the Syrians and Palestinians, and who knows who else- calling in favours, that kind of thing.

This American Thinker article gives some idea of the state of Franco-Syrian relations, and makes that point that 'France always boasts about being the country of the Human Rights'- a claim the magazine criticises in the Syrian context.

The Islamic group claiming responsibility for this latest abduction calls for a reversal of the headscarf ban due for implementation next week. Will the French stand firm in the light of the fate of Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni, apparently in the same hands, or will they back down on their firm domestic policy? Or will a third thing happen, courtesy of France's entente with Araby?

This seems like quite a big deal to me, at least potentially.

Sunday Update: Steyn on the President holding 'all the aces'

Radically Conservative

Arthur Chrenkoff doesn't like the term neo-conservative, but he sure as anything is prepared to defend its principles. Faced with flashpoints like Fallujah he'd have us remember two understandings: that the end-goal is harmony through reasonable political settlement, and that some people respond to reasonable overtures with utter rejection. His thoughtful piece here.

Meanwhile Niall Ferguson has been parroting the Spectator/French/Matthew Parris line that Bush deserves to lose and it would be good for conservatives if he does. Captain Ed has some bones to pick with that theory.

My view is that Bush is not nearly as weak as Ferguson would need him to be to fit his theory. He's certainly far more coherent than John Major was (a parallel between Major and Bush is the central plank of Niall's argument), and he's achieved vastly more than Major ever did. Bush has ideas, whereas Major had nostrums. Bush is patriotic whereas Major had an absurd fantasy of Englishness. Major created his own problems, like the ERM, or Maastricht which radically restricted Britain's political autonomy, whereas Bush has had to deal with 9/11- the biggest challenge imaginable (to the economy as well as the military) and has still found time to re-allign the debate on Kyoto in favour of ditching it. Much of what has followed 9/11 has been attempting to ride the shockwaves while going out to defend America.

It's basically Bush's determined leadership that has offended people left, right and centre, not any perceived ineptitude. He's recognised the need to change the basis of international relations, and the US too. Consequently he's upset a lot of applecarts, as he needed to do, and made a lot of people less comfortable, all the way from foreign despots to liberal-conservative pundits.

True, there are arguments he hasn't gone far enough on some occasions, but these are mostly specious because Bush has made enemies by being radical, so there's no way that people who already have cold feet could stomach him upsetting even more people through being utterly ruthless. Such people tend to be like John Kerry vis a vis the Swift Vets- they're all for bringing it on until, suddenly, they want make it stop.

Brave people take the Chrenkoff line, and stick to it.

Norman Podhoretz (30, 000 words- great Sunday reading) made what I consider the best statement of Bush's approach, and explains why it's right.

Deserves an Award

I've previously mentioned Patterico in despatches for services against media bias. I can't decide whether it ought to be a Purple Heart (you have to go through the pain barrier against big media) or a Silver Star this time around as he forces the LA Times to print a correction in their characterisation of the Swiftboat vets as not including anyone who served on Kerry's boat. Steve Gardner begs to differ, as did Patterico with real success, eventually.

Friendly to the French

In light of my recent negative references to the French- such as linking to Larry's comic evisceration of French military history- I felt a little balancing was in order. If there's anything to which I'm over-partial it's bashing the French; but like any addiction part of the trouble is that there seems to be no alternative: their dreams are idle (EU rivalry to US), their boasts empty (le multi polar world), their actions selfish (Iraq, Rwanda, Mad Cow Disease)- and they always get away still being regarded as sophisticated and charming (see: responses of everyone the world over, as soon as they cool down).

Brett Stephens sets about an apologia for this sorry bunch of... pardon, for the French- and in so doing analyses the overblown rhetoric of the EU.

One point he picks up is a recent hyperbolical publication from the European Council, the big cheese of Euro-affairs. Mark Steyn obviously had discussions with Stephens about this- and I have to say I find his conclusions stronger. Steyn wrote about it ten days ago.

I think Stephens skates over what it means to have a truly selfish foreign policy. In one sense you can envy that; in another I tend to think that what goes around comes around.

An Epitaph on the Heyday of the Left:

'it was easier to let the old blowhard yak away and just nod occasionally.' - Mark Steyn on John Forbes Kerry.

Tres Amusant

Here are two satires from the Right (are there any real satires from the left? Sign of the times perhaps). Larry manages never to be predictable because he's got a slightly, ah, complex personality: you never know which Larry you're gonna get. Today he was celebrating the glorious hospitality of la Fwance. Meanwhile, Larry would I am sure have a lot in common (spelling included) with this blogger, who believes that The Iraq War Was Wrong, and says so, frequently.

Abu Ghraib: the BBC's idee fixee.

Watching Newsnight on the Tuesday night presented me with an interesting comment from Dr James Schlesinger, Abu Graib enquiry chairman. In response to a leading question from a whining Kirsty Wark suggesting that senior figures should lose their jobs over the prison scandal, he said

'I think that is probably an expectation of the BBC, it is not our expectation.'

Could there be a better indictment of the BBC than to say they are utterly predictable? At any rate it would seem the BBC were proud of that exchange, because the transcript of that particular interview was readily available at the Newsnight Site.

From analysis of that I could confirm my feeling that out of eight questions asked, six directly attempted to elicit a response calling into question the future of senior officials, one insinuated that Schlesinger was being diplomatic in not doing so, and the other could be described as functional, if pushy. The interview was useless except to satisfy the BBC appetite for accusing the Bush administration.

To me as a viewer, the only interesting things were those that Schlesinger took care to emphasise of his own accord- such as to make a radical distinction between the day and the night shifts at Abu Ghraib. I have heard so much stemming from the BBC's obsession with responsibility lying at senior levels that it is superfluous to add to it- which they continue to do in this article at BBConline.

Admittedly the further reporting relates to the release of another report, by General Fay, but the idee fixee is unmistakably pursued, with the BBC enlisting Democratic support: ' '"Harry Truman had that sign on the desk and it said, 'The buck stops here,'" Mr Kerry said. ' (fatuously, groping and failing to find his gravit- ass once more).

The American Thinker provides a neat summary from which a clear inference is possible that the BBC in its coverage of this (as it is on many world issues) has become an echo chamber for Democratic rhetoric.

Bonus WMD special (don't get too excited) : weapons of selective destruction, 'twould appear.

Letters, Letters, Letters.

One of the things I appreciate so much about the internet is the availability of so many letters. Print space is cheap (relatively), so it's possible to collect great archives of material, canvassing many viewpoints- possibly referring to just one subject. It's an almost existential thing, drawing on so many experiences of similar matters so closely assembled together. Almost as revolutionary as Hamlet reading from a book in the 17th century Shakespeare play.

This letters page from Mark Steyn's site includes some of the best analysis of Kerry's stories that you'll find anywhere. The internet encourages people to write since they know their efforts are likely to see the light of day- at least for a significant number of readers (significant in terms or a) who you want to read your stuff, and b) the kind of numbers that excite you).

This letter though, on the delightful Michelle Malkin's site, is superb- saying things I've been waiting to hear but failed to hear from mainstream press or even online pundits, like this:


' If one of the men I served with was running for President, I would be extremely proud. If there was any way I could support him for President, I would. The bonds that are formed in combat are special. They are strong. For the men that served in Kerry's unit to state that he is unfit for command cannot and should not be brushed off as "partisan politics." It is not a "Republican vs. Democrat", or "conservative vs. liberal" issue. They aren't doing it for money. It is personal. The Swift Boat Vets are men who came to know John Kerry in the crucible of war and saw things in John Kerry that are so disturbing, that they cannot sit quietly.'

The Centrality of the Vet., and the media mufflers

John O' Sullivan has a good analysis of why the Swifties are going to haunt Kerry till the end. His on the money conclusion:

' Kerry's testimony, given at a time when the Democrats were fiercely anti-war, was a large stepping stone to his present eminence. But the contradictions of being a war hero and an anti-war hero have finally caught up with him. That is why the swift boat veterans will ignore pleas from Bush or anyone else to halt their campaign.'

Contradiction is one of the central weaknesses of modern life, and Kerry's life has really entered into the spirit of it .

He's still at it, says Captain Ed in a piece which reminded me of this from P.J. O'Rourke, which came out very quietly in the Weekly Standard before the brouhahas began. It was convincing even at that time of passivity and relative ignorance of Kerry.

Meanwhile, this well exposed sleight of history is indicative of the quality of Kerry's defence, offered by his friends in the big media.

David Blair (a Zimbabwean) offers one of the best accounts I've come across of the conflict in Darfur. Although he says it's a mistake to see the conflict in terms of an ethnic war, he does say that the Jangaweed were looked on as allies by the Government because they were more 'Arabised'. Seems similar to how Hitler thought of the British- being a little more German than other nations.

Religion not mentioned, though when it comes to the justification for murderous acts there must be some excuse circulating among the people in Islamic Republic of Sudan. What they're saying in the mosques would be interesting to know.

Now They're Being Stupid

The BBC take their skewed reportage of the subject of the Swiftboat vet. allegations even further away from balance with this article about President Bush's response to the advertisements.

It may change, but I'll quote the introduction as it stands (and I've saved the original):

'US President George W Bush has praised the military record of his election rival, John Kerry, and called a halt to unofficial negative advertising.'

Surely there's been some mistake? Bush does not have any power to have 'called a halt' to 527 advertising, as has been clear from the preponderance of MoveOn.org ads which work against the President. It would be illegal for him to coordinate them in any way. It certainly does look like the BBC are trying to assert the Kerry line that the Swiftboat vets, all 254 of them against Kerry's 13, are Republican stooges, and that Bush should MAKE THEM STOP! - or he'll cry.

[After drafting this first thing this morning, I noticed Chrenkoff's very similar observation, which I posted at another place. Just for the record tho', I post what I observed. There are other niggles from the BBC article too, like why absurd criticisms of Bush such as this one-' "The moment of truth came and went, and the president still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing," John Edwards, Mr Kerry's running-mate, said'.- should be aired when the detail of the Swiftboatmen's accusations and the implications of them have passed unnoted by the BBC. The BBC even sign off with a niggle, saying that 'Mr Kerry's team has released a new set of ads in which the men who served under him on a naval vessel in Vietnam pay tribute to his bravery.'- when the bald fact is that one of the men who served under Kerry is actually part of the anti-Kerry swiftvets campaign- so it ought more properly to be 'some of the men' who served under Kerry.

When you have criticisms of fact like this to make, you just don't get around to saying that the Beeb haven't pointed out the incredible numerical disadvantage that Kerry is suffering from- with over 250 Swifties against and only a baker's dozen in his favour. This piece of information is probably the most important thing for the general public to understand- it's not some six-of-one and half-a-dozen-of-the-other shenanigan- it's, as near as could be imagined, Kerry's nemesis. Or at least it shapes up that way. Plus, according to searches I have made, the BBC has not made a mention of the Kerry/Cambodia exploding myth, which just confirms their dismissal of the whole Swiftboats genre. That's something they seem to feel they can get away with given their ambiguous position as international media. This makes an interesting contrast. Or this. Or this.

All examples of the BBC's impartiality at work.]

Simply Outstanding Op-Ed on Iraq in the New York Times that I couldn't resist posting here, even though the Instapundit got there first. The soldier-writer just makes all the points I've mulled over myself, and then some.

It's All Relative.

The BBC sets out boldly to define slavery and identify its hotspots, yet can't resist highlighting the sins of the Great Satan in the process. This map equates the US with Mauritania and Sudan- a proper post-modern muddle that is a recipe for lamenting loudly and doing nothing (scroll up for article) where it matters.

Meanwhile they give another criminal ('Mr Sheet') chance to dissemble about his tortured Darfur region:

"We are Muslims, this is against our code of honour."

To which the follow-up question ought to be, aren't the local blacks Muslims too? Needless to say it isn't asked.

An excellent breakdown of the charges from the Swifties that face Sen. Kerry, who can't decide whether he wants them to bring-it-on or make-it-stop (I think it's clear he must have voted against them before he voted for them- clear I tell you.) from Matthew Continetti.

People seem to view the Christmas-in-Cambodia story, which Kerry promoted and has been discredited, as a kind of journalistic safehouse where MoveOn.org heavies can't knock on your virtual door in the early hours of the morning. I think it would be possible to go much further, and I think it would be great for America if they do, but maybe the US electorate will join up those dots anyway. Besides, it's not over yet, and Kerry's men are scurrying.

Update: There'll be scurry over this. Inept or... what?

The Tangled Web

What was the line? 'O what a tangled web we weave/ When first we practise to deceive' ?

Kerry has stood up in 2004 as a legatee of a myth about Vietnam and the Cold War that has shaped the international political landscape for the world's remaining superpower for the last thirty years. If you're one of those conservatives from outside the US (like me), and have thought the US lacking in discipline or determination, than it can probably be traced to Vietnam.

That's not because what happened in Vietnam was so monumental- significant though US casualties were they weren't close to, say, the Second World War- but because America has been labouring under a generation that excused a great deal based on the 'searing' experience of that war, and Sept. 11th proved that the post-Vietnam sleepwalk had the consequence of unreadiness.

Kerry sought again (almost thoughtlessly, almost instinctively) to wrap himself in the tangled web of the icon of Vietnam that he helped create.

Now conservative America sees an opportunity to untangle parts of the web- oh, and by the way prove that untanglement at the ballot box. Capt. Ed would be exhibit A to prove my point; he's been following with the utmost diligence everything relating to Kerry's Vietnam record and his subsequent use of it. Tom Maguire's good too. So's Blackfive. They're interested in detail, reality, and the ring of truth.

What's the significance of Kerry's service now? For conservatives 'now' is about overcoming the unreadiness that allowed problems as big as Sept 11th and related historical trends to arise, and becoming ready to unravel them: Kerry's record and his toying with it embodies the leadership challenge, the leadership deficit if you like, facing America.

Basically I'm taking this blog's advice, however...

I don't know whether to be happy or irritated that the Iraqi footballers pulled off another Olympic victory. Come to think of it, will Chrenkoff (an Aussie- they beat the Aussies) consider it to be more good news from Iraq? How did people get to be in the Iraqi national football side, anyway, amidst all the disruption?

Update: I think I'll take my lead from my favourite Iraqi bloggers.

2nd Update: this is what Chrenkoff thinks about it.

Celebrating Enmity

The BBC is reporting- prominently- the views expressed by some members of the Iraqi football team. The intro is interesting:

'Iraq's successful Olympic football team has launched an outspoken attack on US President George W Bush.'

Note the implications: this is something the Iraqis have 'launched', and its target is unequivocally George Bush; it is a team effort.

In fact the Iraqis were responding to an interviewer; they were criticising the use of their situation in the US elections, which some broadened to attack Bush personally, and the Iraq football team was neither part of a Bush ad., nor was the Iraqi Olympic team anything more than a passing reference. The ad. stated the fact that there would be two more teams at the Olympics this year- undeniably so- against the backdrop of Afghani and Iraqi flags. Whether the Iraqi footballers like it or not, the image of the Iraqis playing and winning football matches at the Olympics, as Bush rightly pointed out, is pretty remarkable to us. It's a mark of Bush's warmth and broadmindedness (ok, shrewdness too) to notice how much the Iraqis enjoy their 'soccer'.

There are many misrepresentations in this BBC article, which even misreads its Sports Illustrated source, but fortunately, even before the BBC got to it and mangled it, Iraq the Model had these valuable observations to make.

Stand And applaud

No, not the England Cricket team, which has done so well against the West Indies, but Patterico, who, as DumbJon says truly, has offered a masterclass in grappling with media bias.

I felt humbled, given my interest in media bias, at the diligence applied in making sophisticated (and true) general observations, as well as a terrific re-write of a Washington Post article damaging to President Bush, illustrating how to put the boot on the other foot. Many excellent points made, but this one was easily the most vivid:

"What difference does it make to tell a story from the perspective of only one party? Roger Ebert once explained how, by making Norman Bates the protagonist of the horror film "Psycho," Alfred Hitchcock was able to get the audience to see things from Bates's point of view -- to the point where, at times, we are actually rooting for the killer to get away with his crime:

'The sequence ends with the masterful shot of Bates pushing Marion's car (containing her body and the cash) into a swamp. The car sinks, then pauses. Norman watches intently. The car finally disappears under the surface.

Analyzing our feelings, we realize we wanted that car to sink, as much as Norman did.' "

This was so apt that I swear I remember feeling just as Ebert describes at that moment in a film which, although I have never set out to watch, I have been drawn into on several occasions.

All Quiet For Our Boys On The Far-Eastern Front.

No mention at the BBC of Kerry in Cambodia or Kerry and his band of disloyal brothers, or Kerry the war hero/criminal (delete as appropriate for time period you are going through). This is the nearest I have come- read to the bottom, carefully. You can find this though... sorry, I meant this. When in doubt, talk about women.

I predict the BBC will mention the Swiftboat controversy in an opinion piece when it is deemed safe to do so.

On a brighter note, Capt. Ed was a little bowled over with his success, and Hugh Hewitt dissects things nicely

Update: I don't think this qualifies as covering the Swiftboat vets' allegations.

Fairly Quiet In Israel, isn't it?

The opponents of Sharon's wall are powerless in the face of testimonies like this one from Mark Steyn's letters page (well worth a trawl):

THE WALL WORKS GREAT

I just returned from our annual family pilgrimage to Israel and wanted to report that, in my opinion, there has been a sharp upward swing in public confidence in the security services and IDF and that people are going out, and living their lives undaunted by the wishes of the Palestinians to scare the public and blow each Israeli up one by one. We saw the security fence up close near Netanya and it's a beautiful thing. Big, wired, patrolled and it works great. In addition, there are burly, heavily armed, ex-combat soldiers at most key bus stations in Jerusalem-making it very difficult for would-be bombers to get onto buses.
Cafes and malls are full, outdoor festivals thriving...just delightful. There's never been a better time to visit. Just my two cents.

Laura Rosen CohenToronto

Sharon's worst enemies at the moment are the members of his own party, which is testament to his success. I'm an admirer of Sharon's, and this article expresses his bravery and wisdom, and the danger he is in, very well.

More Good Sense From Iraq

And guess what? This time it comes from the Iraqi Government through Dr. Salih, the Deputy Iraqi Prime Minister. Whatever you might say about the interim Government, and there are many who are keen to tar its reputation with a relativist's broad brush (this link is to a report about a seemingly important incident of abuse- what's wrong is to draw too wide an inference based on one event), it's difficult to argue with this:

'The terrorists' claim to be fighting occupation has not been accepted by the Iraqis from the start, since we have known that their goal is in fact to revive the hateful dictatorship of Saddam Hussein or to set up another kind of dictatorship, or at least to prolong the occupation as a means of continuing their malicious efforts to take control of Iraq, to exploit all of its resources for their own interests, and to prevent us from building a stable and safe country and from bringing justice to the people which has suffered oppression without precedent in modern history.'

(thanks to John B. for pointing the way to one of the links)

The thing that strikes me about this excellent (and well-travelled) article from Norman Podhoretz is the extent to which he quotes from and references Bush's speeches to demonstrate that Bush has a doctrine- a rationale, if you prefer- for his foreign policy.

Now if an individual speech is good, that could be a good job from a speechwriter, but if a series of speeches emphasize the same themes, the same rationale, that seems to me like a pattern that can be set by only one man- the man who has to deliver them and then live with them.

Which rather undercuts the view of Bush as a man without a strategy, wouldn't you say?

What the article also makes clear is that Bush has been navigating uncharted waters in US foreign policy- a change of direction Podhoretz, offering a vast historical perspective, considers to have been absolutely necessary. Given that scenario, it's no surprise the passage should be bumpy or the progress erratic. That's what pioneering is about.

Remember the Flypaper?

Some people mocked the theory that US troops in Iraq would be a trap for radicals of all sorts, but David Warren is still talking about it.

The reality is that, of course, if Iraq had an overwhelmingly sane and benign populace a man like Saddam couldn't have dominated them. That's why it should be no surprise that someone such as al-Sadr should prove so troublesome and command a significant amount of loyalty from a thuggish underclass of Iraqi males.

I don't know about Warren's 'flypaper' metaphor though. I might prefer to think instead of a refining process whereby though a process of confrontation on the one hand, and empowerment on the other, Iraqi society can become cleansed and fit for self-development.

Hopefully people like al-Sadr can be burned off, and people like this can rise to prominence.

Nailing the Bush-haters

Victor Davis-Hanson warms up slowly but delivers a real understanding of the hatred of President Bush in this article for NRO. In the process he describes dispassionately something that is in fact a psychological condition. Personally I just want to slap the lot of them round the face, or drench them with buckets of cold water till they do us the courtesy of offering a semblance of sanity. A flavour:

'We not only have an evangelical Christian as president in the age or irony, but one who really makes it sound like we have the ability to make choices that are more right than wrong and then act on them. In a world in which our elites can give 1,000 reasons for inaction and not one for resolution, Mr. Bush seems precipitous, unnuanced, one-dimensional, and oh-so-retro.'

Scare Quotes, Speechmarks, Reported Speech.

A very interesting post, from my point of view, about the phenomenon of 'scare-quoting' from the meditative blogger at God Save the Queen.

Here's an example of the controversy aroused by scare-quoting, from BiasedBBC.

The basic reason one quotes someone is to emphasise that the words you are using do not belong to you, but to someone else. If you don't quote, you are happy to describe things for yourself. This is quite a simple distinction. It's when you consider that you want to both describe things for yourself, and hide behind someone else's words, that there's a problem.

Of course, the 'scare-quotes' thing has become a means of indicating that something is not proven, and from that usage has come to indicate irony- and consequently become a plaything of headline writers and columnists. I know I take advantage of this, sometimes, but I hope not in a manipulative way- and if I do then 'they' started it.

An Essay Point.

Around 2040, assuming people are still required to write essays (when I say 'write', I suppose I should say, 'compose') for whatever educational certificate that then operates, they will learn to regurgitate the small but significant fact that US troops, having been present in Europe in large numbers for 60 years, were drastically cut by President Bush jnr in 2004.

There are lots of consequences this might lead to.

It might accelerate the progress towards a European army, diminishing the status of national armies within Europe (almost a certainty, unfortunately).

It might increase the priority given to defence in European spending (unlikely, but an interesting possibility).

It might provoke some country or organisation to test European military resolve (this prospect is both frightening and, I'm a bit ashamed to say, exhilarating).

I don't want a European army, but I'd support Bush's move for several reasons.

One is that I think America should do what is best for itself, for a change. Only then will Europeans stop moaning about the US being selfish.

Secondly, if Europe wants to be 'fortress Europe', preserving its wealth through protectionism, then it had better get some soldiery to man the fort (at least to scare off extortioners). This will be very good for those who think we can be protectionist without a cost (as I believe many Europeans do).

Thirdly, I think this way we in Britain and people elsewhere in Europe will be confonted with the reality of pooled sovereignty, as we face a stark choice to donate our armed forces to the EU or to develop their compatibility and strength to complement the US army.

Mark Steyn has a trademark article expressing his satisfaction at the move. Highly recommended.

Stephen Pollard attacks the double standards of the Euro-Left in addressing military intervention.

Dr Richard North has some concrete observations about the US announcement. His message to our own politicians? Get real.

Sometimes One Could Weep-

The journalistic standard is so poor, not least at the BBC. Scratch a 'feature' article and you'll find your fingernails all mucky.

I haven't time or (truth be told) inclination to thoroughly eviscerate this obvious piece of rubbish from the BBC- hypnotised as they are by the Michael Moore phenomenon since he is the only person who outstrips them in their keenness to see GWB leave the Whitehouse.

There are, however, some basic points.

One is that one of their substantial vignettes of anti-Bush feeling in the US is over six weeks old- not much of a poll indicator. Here is the gist of their anecdote about cinema owners in the North Carolinan city of Fayetteville, posted at that link on 1st July.

Concerning this story, what is not pointed out by the BBC is that Fayetteville has five cinemas- and the one they feature, 'The Cameo', is an arthouse cinema. Moreover, 'The Cameo' was the only cinema in the town to show Fahrenheit 9/11, and Fayetteville is not, as the BBC say, a 'small town', since it has over 60,000 inhabitants in its own right.

Yes, it is near to Fort Bragg, but 51,000 people, mainly military, are employed at Fort Bragg (which describes itself as a 'major city', and claims to provide services for 250000 people). If a couple of thousand with military discount passes went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 this would not amount to much, when you count in dependents who might make use of them.

Anyone would think that the military were instructed en bloc to vote Republican, when obviously their politics have always been mixed.

If the reporter, Hugh Sykes, honestly thinks he's onto some phenomenon here, he's a idiot. More likely, he doesn't care as long as the trends he wants to further, the vibes he wants to encourage, are nourished.

This, sad to say, was the centrepiece of the BBC article- the local colour, the clinching image- yet it's just more banal reheated Moore-fetishism from the BBC.

Solid Reporting from our excellent blogosphere rapporteurs, Chenkoff with a lovely new lot of good news from Iraq, and Omar of Iraq the Model. I love it when they (I.t.M.) diss that Sadr muppet. Speaking frankly, the respectful tone adopted by the official media, describing him as a leading cleric or something like that, or describing his so-called followers as 'militiamen loyal' to said 'cleric', makes me feel a bit sick. Thus it is like a successful bowel movement after a time of discomfort when the brothers in Iraq make themselves plain:

'this man doesn’t have the slightest margin of manners let alone brains! And I believe that who calls Muqtada a “cleric” is totally mistaken and is unnecessarily offending the clerics; I’m not fond of them anyway (not forgetting that some of them are wise and respectable men) but at least in general they talk and behave in a much better way than this idiot.'

Reading more closely what the brothers have to say, I see we share similiar 'gut' feelings about the younger Sadr's phenomenon.