Sack this man, NOW!

I'm not sure that is exactly the way to get what I want, but it felt good to type it. I am truly furious at the BBC and at Justin Webb, seriously jaded correspondent in the US.

I should first say I understand exactly what he is saying in an article which deals with the US/EU division- if you will, a division of consciousness. It's something I've thought about a lot through close dealings with both Europeans and Americans (though I've only encountered a wide variety of US expats in various locations, rather than visited the country itself. Saving the best..., is how I would put it).

But it's soo0 banal- I wouldn't blame you if you took one look and gave up on Webb's blatherings, but I feel I should mention them.

Let's start with the most obvious factual calumny. According to Webb the US response to the Tsunami illustrates their lack of reality by comparison with Europe. Did he bother to find out that France, to take the most prime example, was so ill-equipped in their effort to help that they had only one helicopter to administer their aid effort, and that loaned to them? As one Frenchman exclaimed on TV with a notable European flourish of realism, 'It is as though France no longer has the means even to express its emotions.' or as a reporter was reported saying , '"The good will of the rescuers is not in question," says Pujadas. "This is well and truly a foul up."' If he thought that Europeans were on the ball regarding the Tsunami it is Webb who is the fantasist, wilfully failing to notice failure. Frankly I couldn't give a damn who saw what pictures- I am interested to see who was on hand to help. So were the Indonesians.

According to Webb

'America is fast becoming a nation of faith not fact. A nation where the unpleasant aspects of human existence are simply airbrushed away.

Television coverage of the Asian Tsunami was a case in point. In Europe it was covered as an unrelenting tragedy, in America, one television network promised "incredible stories of lives saved in near miraculous fashion".'

...


'While Europeans fret about what they regard as real life, about poverty and social justice and about combating AIDS, Americans find it easier to rally round a vision, however otherworldly it might be.'

Like the 'vision' Bush has about donating billions of dollars to help Aids victims in Africa, I suppose.

Not only does he demonstrate ignorance bordering on complete dishonesty, stupidity is also displayed. Setting aside the assumption that the best measure of the reality of a nation's worldview is the extent to which they show violence of different sorts on their television, or the assumption that the nature of TV in various places is a good measure of anything at all, did it occur to Webb that the reason for a greater sense of 'reality', so-called, in Europe, could have been their much greater involvement in the casualties that were recorded? If the US' population had been hit by the tsunami like, say, Sweden's, I think there would have been more direct coverage, at the very least in terms of interviews with victims' families questing to have bodies discovered and returned.

Webb goes on to tack this observation to an observation about the numbers of Americans who believe in what is technically termed 'The Rapture'. Well, this teleological prediction may not be true, but it is certainly something about which Europeans are largely ignorant but Americans are comparatively well informed. It is Webb's automatic presumption that belief in certain things indicates unreality, which he also links to ignorance. In fact of course there are people in the US highly educated in the field of theology for whom such concepts as The Rapture are matters of robust debate. Debate- you know, the thing we don't have about our central idea for the future, the European Superstate. I'm willing to bet the populous of the US know more certifiable facts about different theories of the End-times than EU citizens know about their political masters' political teleology.

As if his massive simplification and condescension weren't bad enough, he adds a note of true absurdity, which nevertheless does approximate a truth- if I can explain.

'No wonder then, that in international affairs America is so willing to smite its enemies.

Or to hold firm to a principle even when practicalities get in the way.

It has been happening for years.

'Atlantic chasm'

Witness President Reagan's arms build up in the 1980s, which helped to destroy the Soviet Union, or the first President Bush's decision to press for German re-unification, when even Mrs Thatcher was nervous.'

The way this shadows, but does not represent, reality, is that, yes, America stands out by its willingness to consider the possibility that it might have enemies, to conduct foreign policy with this in mind, and to act when it views it necessary to act, or, if you prefer to use Biblical language, 'smite' the self-proclaimed enemies of the United States. This would, in a non-fantasist's lexicon, be known as 'diplomatic reality.' I can only think that Webb lives in a bubble that is not simply post-modern, but post-reality, and certainly pre-Sept 11th 2001.

But judging from this article, and others, Webb would only be comfortable in a pre-1989 world, and even that would have to be in a privileged post editing Pravda.

Sorry- no time equalled no posts yesterday. Today I have spent an amiable time surfing. I realised, among many other things, that I'd followed the Belmont Club from less than 20,000 registered visitors to over 5 million. I also realised how essential it is to have a simple memorable registration for the Spectator, solely for the purpose of reading Mark Steyn's lit crit, and lines like this one about Arthur Miller:

'He wasn’t amiable enough to be an amiable dunce but he was the most useful of the useful idiots.'

Speaking of useful idiots, Powerline chose this time to launch several posts about Jimmy Carter. There's something in the last paragraph of this one that seems to suggest a translation from an Iraqi paen to Saddam Hussein.

'O great poet, novelist, artist, builder, seer, peacemaker, thank you. Thank you because I am joyful. Thank you because I am well. Centuries will pass, and the generations still to come will regard us as the happiest of mortals, as the most fortunate of men, because we lived in the century of centuries, because we were privileged to see you, our inspired leader. Yes, and we regard ourselves as the happiest of mortals because we are the contemporaries of a man who never had an equal in world history.'

This kind of brings me back to Steyn's view of Miller:

'a man of such unbounded self-regard judged the health of nations and political systems in the same way he did the health of the American theatre — by how fulsomely they acknowledge his genius.'

Meanwhile, all this talk of cosying up to dictators (a British artform, I'm afraid, that was marred only by two or three world wars) brought to mind someone else. Austin Bay has an excellent post on why Eason Jordan's resignation was not honourable. Thanks to Roger Simon for several interesting links.

Understanding Ken. Melanie Phillips, well placed as a London journalist throughout Ken's rising and falling, does a pretty good job- and highlights a potentially dangerous trend of synthesis between radical Islam and the Left, in this case between Ken's anti-Jewishness, and Al Qaradawi's.

Incidentally, defenders of Ken tend to highlight the Daily Mail (Standard's sister paper)'s association with Oswald Mosely in the Thirties. Well, they don't call Ken 'Red' for nothing. If I didn't find it idiotic to compare despot with despot the way we used to play Top Trumps, I'd wonder what the body count comparison would be between Mosely's heroes and Kenneth's.

The BBC at work: Building 'em up; knocking 'em down; rallying the troops. After all- it's in a good cause.

Says Linda Burney of the Aborigines (last link),

'"[Aborigines] can look forward to being sick, unemployment, racism and a very, very early death," said Linda Burney, the first indigenous member of the New South Wales state parliament.'

So, what's the downside to Abo. life, I wonder?

Nicholas Vance gets better- not that he ever really needed to, but it's all to the good when it comes to incisive comment on the BBC's biases, or sheer incompetences.

He reports on Matt Frei's pursuit of the sinister Christian Right in the US which is said to underlie the great satan.. er, sorry, the capitalist leader of the world's economy. Funny how a secularist comes to see the worship of mammon as a kind of identifiable sin (the BBC journalist funded from the public purse, that is).

Anyway, a great post about a fool's journalistic errand. What strikes me is that we won't be hearing about the sinister phenomenon of the spread of the Islamic banking system any time soon from the BBC.

Meanwhile, Steyn produces gem after gem of hard edged prose to scythe into the UN's scurrilous ranks, eg.

'UN territories like Kosovo are the global equivalent of inner-city council estates with the blue helmets as local enforcers for the absentee slum landlord.'

or

'But, if Lynndie's smashed to pieces our entire morality with just one tug, Bush's Zionist neocons getting it on with Congolese kindergarteners would have the Independent calling for US expulsion from the UN - no, wait, from Planet Earth: slice it off from Maine to Hawaii and use one of those new Euro-Airbuses to drag it out round the back of Uranus.'

Way to go. Sometimes I wish that hatemongers like those at the Indie would take such analogies and think about them until their jaundiced minds burst.

He's Back! Steyn I mean, at least in terms of his too long hiatusing website. He's back and he's controversial as ever, as in this extract from an article to which I don't have full access (maybe you do?), but I can at least guess where he's going with it from the excerpt.

If I lived in Britain, I'd vote for Tony Blair's Labour party. Yes, yes, I know he's a nanny-state control-freak and you can hardly pull your pants on in the morning without filling in the form for the Public Trouser Usage Permit and undergoing inspection from the Gusset Regulatory Authority. But on the One Big Thing — the great issue of the age — he's right, and he's reliable. And, sad to say, the British Conservative party isn't. Their leader, Michael Howard, has been a cheesy opportunist on the war, supporting it at the time, backtracking later, his constantly evolving position twisting itself into a knot of contortions even John Kerry might find over-nuanced.'

It's a sentiment I almost agree with, and I could go along with, but I don't expect much from Mr Blair on the WoT from here onwards. Has Steyn not noticed all Tony's talk of learning from mistakes? Isn't that a similar kind of twisting in the wind to that which he accuses Howard of? Besides, Blair may be right in his grasp of the WoT, but he can't carry his party with him in that understanding. If anything Blair may be a fifth column ally for the US, carrying his socialist freight with him as he does- for instance over Iran. At least Howard would only have the same pontificating idiots to deal with that he already has to deal with over Europe, eg. Clarke, Hezza, Rifkind and Brittan.

Update: darned Blogger is delaying posting my posts, hence this one's late arrival.

Barone Balance. Michael Barone analyses blogs (via Instapundit) and their political effects. He makes a lot of spot-on points, and struck the biggest chord for me when he said 'the right blogosphere was different from the left. There was no one dominant website and no one orthodoxy'

It's very much my impression that Kos is the darling of the US Left. In the UK the situation is different, but in the States it seems like being part of an overwhelming movement, submerged in a mindset and worldview of moral indignation, is the only way to be for the Left- hence Kos's success, which has coincided with the Left's failure. This authoritarian tendancy is the natural consequence of the ideological fixity which is inseparable ultimately from socialism.

Here in the UK the blogosphere is less developed, and really the most recurrent thought I have is that with Blair we're going through what I feel to be our 'Clinton years'. With the rest of Europe so weak economically, and no stained dresses on Mr Blair's conscience, and no 9/11 wake up call conceivable for so many reasons (and let's hope we never have to deal with such an event), perhaps we'll never realise- but I am sure we'll see the Blair years as a time of political lethargy, waste and missed opportunities.

I'd say the blogosphere in the UK actually leans leftwards, in a lukewarm sort of way, and that, even absenting a Conservative Kos, the Conservative perspective is held more emotionally than rationally. It's at the point when hard-headed Conservatism makes a return that we might see the kind of reversal that would synchronise us with the US blogosphere.

I think that will happen over the next ten years- too long but worth waiting for.

I am a fan of cricket, and though I rarely mention it, I just found amusing this little excerpt from one of those running commentaries the BBC provides on their website.

In the 33rd over: 'Just 17 overs remain and at 89-6, England are merely hoping they can bat out the overs.'

Here's the latest, livebloggin' here!:' Eng 208-7 46.1 ovs v SA'

Bit of a turnaround, methinks, courtesy of our South-African born Pietersen. However, they'll probably still lose so I'm not over-excited; I have learned to create a zen-like calm when it comes to investing interest and hopes in sporting affairs.

Couple of Items

First of all CNN was the liveliest I've seen it in ages (I am a fairly frequent watcher of this channel) in the wake of Eason Jordan's resignation. The need to self-justify dragged up an interesting item (no, fascinating)about Sudan's rapprochement with the South, but also a whiny David Kay to warn about the dangers of getting Iran's WMD capabilities wrong (this is the man I am convinced has made a plea bargain with the Liberal media: 'don't destroy my professional life and I'll say anything you want me to'). The Sudan item was an interview with one of the former rebel leaders of the South, who now plans to enter a powersharing arrangement with the North. These were just two of the desperate stabs that CNN made to distract from their unease over Eason.

Meanwhile, LGF noticed Red Ken's antisemitism- or should that be anti-Jewishness?- in the light of his support for al-Qaradawi.

And by the way, this article about Argentina's emerging anti-US position and alliances with Cuba and Venezuela from the American Thinker is fascinating.

The things I value about David Frum include his sense of personal involvement in the things he comments about. This was especially evident in a recent post about an Iraqi politician, Mithal al-Alusi, who suffered the terrible loss of two sons in a recent attempt on his life by terrorist gunmen, yet managed when commenting on his devastation to mention a third murder which occurred on the same occasion, that of his bodyguard, in the same breath as his sons'.

I wonder if there is anyone who will read Frum's post apart from me who will make the connection between this incident and another politician who lost two sons to violence in Iraq. The man that I am thinking of is Saddam Hussein. I have to admit I didn't care at all when he lost his sons- in fact I was quietly pleased for a variety of reasons.

So, the question I ask of myself is, do I lack balance to react so differently? Does David Frum for that matter? Or are we actually maintaining a moral compass in distinguishing between the killing of the sons of a peaceful democrat and a those of a vicious dictator.

Should we have marked the deaths of Uday and Qusay, terrible names for many Iraqis, the way we mark the deaths of Mithal al-Alusi's sons, whose names I do not know?

Frum ends his post by quoting from a recent (unpublished, sadly) article from Al-Alusi- which I found quite penetrating. Above all though was the reasonableness of the man. A good man, I would say- even if saying such a thing is really a bit of stretch for anyone.

'Last month, I became the first Iraqi official ever to visit the State of Israel. My visit outraged my colleagues in the provisional Iraqi government. I was fired from my job as General Director of the Supreme National Commission for DeBaathification, expelled from my political party, and stripped of my personal security detail: a potentially deadly punishment for somebody in my position in today’s Iraq. I was even threatened with criminal prosecution.'

Frum quotes this in the context of his anger at the narrow-mindedness of rentagob opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. Can't they at least support the kind of people exemplified by Al-Alusi? Can't they keep a civil tongue, at least, in the face of suffering?

To quote Frum:

'Maybe it’s too much to ask Americans to support such brave people – that at least seems to be the dominant point of view in today’s Democratic party and much of today’s elite media. Maybe it’s too much even to be bothered to pay attention to Arab democrats' struggles and hardships in exile and under tyranny. But can we not at least refrain from ridiculing them?'

It seems the fault is ours. If only we had valued the lives of Uday and Qusay this might never have happened. I suppose, too, that if Al-Alusi had never been so unbalanced as to show support for Israel what has befallen his family would never have happened, either.

I was reminded of Paul Reynolds, who I quoted yesterday, saying that France and Germany, mindful of the price the US was paying, didn't feel the need to 'rub American faces in it'

But what niggled me so much was what 'it' was. 'It' being US deaths? 'It' being Iraqi deaths? If 'it' was economic problems, then I know who would have experienced more of the rubbing of faces, and it wouldn't be GWB.

As it happens, I completely disagree with anyone who says that the price has been high, too high, or some such thing, even though I can't talk about the price from personal experience, like many a family in the States or in the UK, or like Al-Alusi and some of his compatriots.

The likes of Reynolds seek to trivialise the ends and ridicule the means that the US has made its labour in the Middle East. In doing so people like Al-alusi and the countless victims of terror are merely caught in the crossfire. Too busy pursuing mean spirited political goals, the BBC and co. are simply unable to dignify the deaths of the innocent with respect (even the deaths of those they genuinely accept are innocent- these are the casualties of the random dribblings of the incontinent North American superpower). After all, if we had just shown the respect due to Saddam Hussein, this whole 'adventure' or 'calamity', depending on our rhetorical objectives, would never have taken place.

Ohh, look- the Beeb say Iranians are all unified behind the Mullahs.

Despite the fact that they must know better, they can't resist this temptation towards 'balance', as they call it. They also can't resist saying things like this:

'The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says those in power want to show they have genuine popular support, and make it far more difficult for the Americans to topple the regime.'

Which is the Beeb's way of calling a spade a spade. Didn't hear about it in Condi's speech recently, though. The Beeb knows even better than the French not to believe the words of a neo-Con.

Paul Reynolds has an article about neo-Condi- where I agree with him that Condi has not changed her position in terms of substance. However, after the successful elections in Iraq, I find it hard to credit that Reynolds thinks that

'The French and Germans have no intention of joining in the Iraq adventure and reckon that the US is now paying the price of a wrong decision.

So they do not feel the need to rub American faces in it.'

This is the sort of casual language Reynolds uses when he wants to pull a fast one. It's not as if Bush didn't scupper all their hopes when he got reelected. It's not as if the election success didn't pull a rug from under the Iraq war critics. Their position, as Steyn has argued cogently, is dribbling away. The only question now is what their exit strategy will be: the attentive audiences for Condi suggested that Europeans in fact know the game is up. They've been contradicted by the stained finger. So has Zarqawi. The game's up- but let's not rub their faces in it.

Pants!

The BBC's sense of priorities was interesting last time I checked. It was held to be bigger news that the British PM 'apologised' (no quotemarks for the BBC) to the Guilford bunch than that MPs were debating the EU Constitution. Even while covering it, the Beeb let Straw get away with the utterly ridiculous argument that the EU Constitution represented a line in the sand:

'Mr Straw said the constitution signalled "thus far and no further" by clearly setting out the limits of EU powers.'

Notice what is quote marked and what isn't. Straw's assertion- yes. Straw's justification for that- no.

In fact, that pathetic gesture politics over the Guildford lot being played by Blair(never mind the pesky bank robbery, we can still be friends) is a long way less important than the progressive seizure of the powers of the United Kingdom's elected legislators.

Bigger still for the Beeb was that Virginian State delegates were backing fines for 'droopy drawers'. So, anti-Americanism conquers much, it would seem. As the BBC puts it, 'US politicians fed up with catching an eyeful of underwear want to fine those who won't hitch up their trousers.'

Yeah, the BBC- well and truly hipsters.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports, unquotemarked, that 'More than one million people from the EU's eight eastern European states have visited the UK since their countries joined last May, figures show.' . Wot, no "visited"?

I notice that 'Around 90,000 said they intended to stay longer than three months', and I wonder if that is all we have to rely on- what they say.

For coverage of the issue that actually raises some questions instead of enforcing answers irrespective, Nicholas Vance asks some questions of the Beeb.

For coverage of the Constitution debate that doesn't tolerate the Straw man's puffery, EURef has a nice post, and promises more to come.

Looks like I was right, sort of, and the Diplomad's period of grace has ended. Whether this was the consequence of the big splash they made considering the sensitivity of their occupation, I leave you to decide based on their valedictory post.

It was good while it lasted, and they link to some alternatives for our perusal. There're plenty of options to put in my links section- more appearing than dissappearing, I feel, on balance.

A Fine Line or a Crooked Path?

Some scepticism here and here about the Sharon rapprochement with Abbas as some kind of Oslo-lite. I'm sympathetic when no-one has really demonstrated to me that Abbas is any more unequivocally committed to peaceful means of resolving the issue than Arafat was. Sure, Abbas can be found saying the right things, and can engender some modest moves in the right direction, but I believe Arafat was capable of that. I see (saw) Sharon's unilateral disengagement plans as- essentially and justly- an attempt to gain the best grounds for fighting a war by either means necessary. If it means signing up to the UN/BBC/French/Palestinian 'peace plan', then it means nothing good for Israel. I don't yet concede that's what we're getting right now, but it could be. The American Thinker (second link) was particularly scathing, and that publication is lashing Bush generally at the moment. I would counsel patience, but Republicans feel that they have some slack to use post election, and they're really using it. Says the A.T.:

'Sharon’s actions are so inexplicable, so out of character, so extreme and so dangerous that one can seriously inquire if he is in his right mind. ... If the Bush Administration continues its ruinous course of supporting Sharon's “disengagement” policy and joining him in the appeasement of the Abbas-Fatah terrorist regime, then it too will be guilty of betraying its own principles as enunciated in Mr. Bush's justly celebrated speech of June 24, 2002'

To which I would reply, still, 'wait and see.'

Stormin' Norman? Really, I never would have thought of our mild-mannered Norman Geras in such terms if the Times hadn't just used them in a big splash profile. (via Powerline)

Want a sound basis for understanding the world of international politics? Don't want to be a dummy and trust all the wrong people to do things which completely miss the point? Read Mark Steyn now. Yes, lots of people have linked his latest article, most of you will have read it, but this is my favourite part:

'a few days ago, the UN Human Rights Commission announced the working group that will decide which complaints will be heard at their annual meeting in Geneva this spring: the five-nation panel comprises the Netherlands, Hungary, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. I wouldn't bet on them finding room on their crowded agenda for the question of human rights in Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, would you? One of the mystifying aspects of UN worship is the assumption that this embryo world government is a "progressive" concept. It's not. Its squalid geographic voting blocs, which use regional solidarity to inflate the status of nickel'n'dime dictators, are merely a Third World gloss on the Congress of Vienna – a relic of an age when contact between states was confined to their governing elites. In an era of jet travel, internet and debit cards that work in any bank machine from Vancouver to Vilnius to Vanuatu, there are millions of global relationships far better for the long-term health of the planet than using American money to set up Eurowimp talking shops manned by African thugs – which is what the UN Human Rights Commission boils down to.'

This passage, especially the last part, contains oodles of that precious commodity, reality.

The BBC: market leaders in conspiracy theories.

I was interested, first of all, by USS Neverdock's impassioned plea to the more traffic-laden parts of the blogosphere to become more directly involved in exposing the BBC's biased journalism.

Then came the well-known story of how Eason Jordan has accused the US military of targeting journalists, which Roger Simon reports with a link to a Washington Times article, 'CNN's line of fire'

Then I remembered the name of the BBC journalist who helped create this meme about 18 months ago: Nick Gowing, a senior BBC hack. BlogIrish reported this.

Where the BBC have been unafraid to tread, and often commended for so doing, the US' premiere news channel now follows.

What this shows, I think, is that if you want to fight in the war of ideas, you must take on the BBC.

Austin Bay, meanwhile, has a terrific post reminding us of something else: CNN's Eason Jordan's murky history regarding Saddam's Iraq.

Anti-American language. Norm has a classic example of Yankophobic behaviour. Indoctrination of speakers of English as a second language thanks to Michael Moore.

Meanwhile Norm also has a nice observation that surely many of us had about the Bush SToU speech. Don't forget, now is the time for diplomacy, which means that later... we'll take tea and cakes, naturally.

While the BBC reports Gordon's swanky stability and poverty party, and has this to say:

'Mr Brown is expected to push for extra aid and debt relief for Africa, and again there is slim hope that a firm agreement will be reached during the two-day summit.

Among the G7 finance ministers, the Europeans tend to agree with Mr Brown's arguments while Japan and the US are expected to be harder to convince.'

Claudia Rosette has her eyes fixed on GWB, leader of those stingy Yanks we've all heard about:

'To whatever extent Mr. Bush's vision of ending tyranny is realized, it will do more to end poverty than any amount of aid, including the $195 billion the United Nations now proposes to pour into development over the next decade, following the advice of a 3,000-word study put together by 265 experts (which works out to about 11 words, or $730 million in recommended spending, per expert).'

It seems to me that Europeans don't know what they're missing with their phobic behaviour towards the US and their actual inertia when it comes to changing the unjust equilibrium in the world's division of comforts. (Link from Frum's diary)

This is indeed a superb profile of Charles Johnson, of LGF fame. All I knew was that he cycled, and played music- until now. He's actually quite cool, in a hippy sort of way, not that I really care about that kind of thing. (via Roger Simon)

So, The food was only tainted with oil. Presumably not very good for the system.

I think Iraq only seemed like a gamble.

I mean, I suppose, that the gamble in Iraq was seen as a gamble mainly because of the sceptics, the antis, the Stoppers, and so on. Really, how much of a gamble is it to say that people want to be a)Free of oppression and b) With a say in their own futures? A no-brainer, I would say (insert joke about W., if so simple-minded, here).

I feel that this 'guest contributor' to the Times would agree (via RCP)

Steyn strikes a blow for Ali and IraqtheModel (as though they needed it) and at least one for every type of freedom lover everywhere. Great article in a publication where I sense he's comfortable:

'"These elections are a joke," Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan, told Reuters. Sorry, professor, the joke's on you. And the modern Middle East history is being made by the fledgling democracy of the new Iraq.'

Read the whole thing. (via Real Clear Politics)

More Excellent Thoughts from Nicholas Vance- not least on two characters of our age, Galloway and Simpson. Contrary to what I was saying about the clear water between Galloway and Simpson in the below post, Nicholas notices their affinities:

'Simpson's argument was repeated by Newsnight favourite George Galloway, who said the violence in Iraq is not about "terrorism versus democracy" but "occupation versus resistance." When a morally grotesque figure like Galloway is on your side, it's time to rethink your position.'

I think it's possible both that Simpson and Galloway retain affinities, and that Simpson is preparing his way to a more conciliatory position. Simpson actually never closes any door behind him that he might need to exit by. Galloway- well, we all know where he stood, and the doors he closed firmly behind him. Only the patronage of the likes of the BBC stands between him and utter discreditation (I am sure most readers will consider discreditation a done deal, but there he is, basking in the attention, still).

The Left Turns as One (almost).

Some people claim the BBC isn't biased. That's why it's interesting for me when the BBC and such publications as the Guardian execute what appear to be almost synchronised maneuverings.

Brownie from Harry's Place has a terrific conclusion to his latest post, where, having ridiculed The Galloway's latest blunderings, he says

'People of Iraq, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability…

And you can quote me on that.'

Yes, but, the point of Brownie's post is to say that not everyone who is/was a 'stopper' is as stupid as Galloway. In fact, he notes

'the emergence of a new breed of Stopper: the ‘I wouldn’t have done it like that’ strain. Unlike the Stalinist celebrities that lead their cause, it’s not that these people don’t want to arrive at a democratic Iraq, it’s just that they wouldn’t have started from here.

This variety of Stopper appears ready to concede that, whilst much remains to be done, and whilst nothing can make the war ‘right’, the future of Iraq suddenly doesn’t look quite so bleak as it did 48 hours ago. There are some real giveaways, but one line more than any appears to dominate post-election, moderate Stopper discourse. Today’s Guardian editorial, quoting Kofi Anan, is perhaps the finest exemplar:

This election is…only a first step in deciding Iraq's future.

How many times have you heard that line today, or something like it, from Stopper friends and family desperately searching for a cloud to go with the election’s silver lining?'

If I might paraphrase this latest Guardian wheeze: 'it's taken us TWO WHOLE YEARS TO GET TO THIS BLODDY ELECTION!'

Meanwhile, Niall Kilmartin at B-BBC makes an interesting point along similar lines, describing the BBC's exit strategy as he noticed how John Simpson ended his Panorama programme on an incongruous high by saying, of the Coalition effort in Iraq, "I think it is bound to succeed. It’s just a pity that it has been so badly botched by so many people along the way.” :

To quote Kilmartin,

'If, a few years hence, Iraq has not subsided into chaos or a brutal regime like Saddam’s, they could still claim that the process of moving from Saddam to the present was so badly botched by so many people that it nevertheless fully merited all the hostile coverage it got.'

That's how the Guardian and the BBC think alike, aided by weighty public figures like Annan in discerning which way the political weather is blowing. Of course they shouldn't get away with it, but they do.

A Time to Crow (not eat crow)

After the success of Iraq's elections, John Podhoretz does it like a New Yorker.

Ok, ok, ok, there's still lots to do, but I personally am thinking about Paul Reynolds dismal chime every second week for a year or so that elections would be next to irrelevant, never mind impossible (near-randomly sampled pessimism in those links). Every hurdle they set the Iraqis and coalition jump. Then they think of another one. Reynolds is one of the shrewdest obstacle setters out there.

A time for Arthur, I think, if you want to do it like an Polish/Australian.

On a humorous note- good to see that the invaluable blog the Iraq war was wrond is getting the attention it deserves- finally. (via Tim Blair)

Meanwhile, back at the BBC ranch... even the most senior journalists just keep blaming other people.

Anyone with an ounce of commonsense could see that the Iraqi Government may not be making the transparency of their statistics to western journalists their first priority.

Anyone with half an ounce could see that terrorists kill whereas US troops retaliate very effectively to the threats they face.

Here is the BBC's original report in cache form- thanks to Marc at USS Neverdock.

Yet the Beeb can only say that 'Iraqi health ministry figures for deaths in violence cannot differentiate between those killed by coalition forces and insurgents, officials say', by way of excusing a gross overstatement of US responsibility for death rates in Iraq- this despite the scepticism expressed initially to them by John Negroponte.

The most crucial statistical fact seems to me to be buried at the end of the report:

'The deaths recorded included those of militants as well as civilians, officials said.'

Today I saw, on Sky I think, that a suicide bomber had exploded at an Iraqi polling booth- killing 'one'. Which one was that I wondered, preparing for a little inward celebration if it was just the idiot bomber himself. Unfortunately I haven't found out if the suicide bomber had laughably killed only himself- but it points up the crucial issue that deaths of so-called insurgents don't count, or if they do then they are an unquestionably good news from Iraq.

I wish the decent people of Iraq every blessing and millions of peaceful voting moments over the coming hours.

(Post Updated)

What's happening to the Conservatives?

Nothing good, is my usual rule of thumb. Glenn Reynolds seems to have worked out what has become the fate of the Conservatives in Britain in his analysis of the Republican/Democrat battles in the US:

'It does seem to me that Karl Rove wants to do to the Democrats what Tony Blair's Labour has done to the Tories. And it also seems to me that the Democrats are helping Rove a lot, just as the Tories helped Blair'

On the other hand though, Richard North has noticed some of those fabled green shoots of recovery- the result, he says, of Michael Howard's hard line on immigration, with its eurosceptic implications- just poking up in the latest YouGov poll. I'm personally a little wary of YouGov, since it is the polling group of choice for the Torygraph. He comments as part of his regular Booker appreciation post:

'The really fascinating thing, though, is that there has been no backlash from the Europhiles in the Tory Party – of the type that plagued Hague. Kenneth Clarke has stayed silent in his lair and none of the other "usual suspects" have uttered a word in public.

The only reaction, in fact, has come not from the Europhiles but from the public – which have heavily endorsed Howard’s stance, and given him his first boost in the polls for a long time.'

Let's hope Howard knows when he's onto a good thing. It's seemed to me as though he mainly enjoys tinkering with his political agenda to score short term points on a register above the hearing of the electorate- but I hope I'm wrong and that Howard is just bracing himself for some bold and decisive public policy actions.

Update: Meanwhile, Eursoc has a fascinating hard-headed look at these issues.

Speaking Truth to Power: Vaclav Havel tells it like it is over the EU's foreign policy (yes, there is an EU foreign policy) (via RealClearPolitics). It's heartening to find Vaclav Havel still talking such a deal of sense after all these years (although, as usual with Havel, his starting point seems somehow peripheral to the mainstream, being the EU's appeasement of Castro. However, such a starting point for a man like Havel is understandable and fitting, I guess.):

'Where will it end? The release of Milosevic? Denying a visa to Russian human-rights activist Sergey Kovalyov? An apology to Saddam Hussein? The opening of peace talks with al Qaeda?

It is suicidal for the EU to draw on Europe's worst political traditions, the common denominator of which is the idea that evil must be appeased and that the best way to achieve peace is through indifference to the freedom of others.'

Sex Farces.

Cutting edge stuff from the BBC- found on the World Edition. I wish I could say it was even funny.

Meanwhile, you don't find much about this- but you'll certainly hear about this.

Anyone for a new world order?

Actually you will find this about the UN's sexual problems in the BBC website, but I usually conclude a journalist wants to forget a story when they use a term like 'upheld' in their headline. The use of legalese in such a context usually heralds a call to move on because the journalist considers there's nothing worthwhile seeing (for you, the reader, that is).

For all the seriousness of the abuse of power involved, the abstraction of such terminology as 'while many of the girls could not identify the individual peacekeepers responsible, their reports of regular sexual contact were detailed and convincing.' tends to distance us, or invite a ribald comment. It's almost Clintonesque in its tendancy towards farcicality. Funny that.

Items #2 The Diplomad covers most of the bases when it comes to the climate change industry, while in an interesting post on Highway 99, brought here via Austin Bay, the BBC's post-colonial leftist guilt trip is analysed for the wild ride of hypocrisy it has involved- on Iraqi WMD in this case. One can only marvel at how they got from Saddam- the West's 'Caliban', to Blair lied, people died. Chief target for investigation is Jeremy Paxman, most refreshingly. It includes a classic opening to a blogpost, in my opinion:

'While I was trying to find out whether BBC reporter and presenter Jeremy Paxman had explicitly endorsed the idea that HIV is a manufactured virus...I came across a new 2002 edition of his book, 'A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret Story of Chemical & Biological Warfare'...'

There it is: investigative, interested, radical- just the way things should be.

Items.

Item one is to apologise for the lack of posts yesterday- 'Blogger' seemed to have one of its bouts of indigestion every time I tried to navigate it. Just spat me out like a half-baked potato.

Item two is to make clear that, you know, despite what I wrote below, I do have one or two bones to pick with torture. Serious bones actually (not that I ever, ah, literally pick bones, you understand).

Item three is really the most important. Nicholas Vance has been tackling some of the BBC's isshoos (as Tony Benn would say). He makes some excellent points about immigration and the environment- two of the isshoos that historians will look back upon and wonder how we could have been so gullible as to believe everything Auntie and her ilk tell us about them. That will be once we have overcome our Greater Western guilt complex and actually learnt some real things about our environment. Could take a while.

Torture: big deal!

Aunty Beeb thinks it's big news, I mean big news, that Iraqi security forces have been (are) committing abuse in a systematic way against prisoners.

The Beeb's presentation is breathless (as in fact has been their presentation of every last bomb that's exploded, shock, horror, 'just days from elections etc')

So let's take that breath the BBC deny us and think instead. What we are dealing with in terms of human rights abuse in Iraq is a cultural issue exacerbated by circumstances. (The BBC in fact spent a long period trying to convince us that the US were the only torturers in Iraq -oh, apart from Saddam who they mentioned occasionally. Now, handing the job of oversight of prisoners over, amazingly we find that abuse is 'systematic'- which is hardly a term behaviour like Charles Graner's deserved, much as the Beeb huffed and puffed to make it so.)

It's cultural because oppressive regimes are the norm in Iraq (as elsewhere in the region), and all such have oppressive apparata. That's a culture that is assumed and easy to add to almost unwillingly or unwittingly.

It's due to circumstances because the guys that have been imprisoned were likely viewed as torturing Baathists, or vicious terrorists- or scum rising up amidst chaos, and naturally were not very popular with their captors.

So the BBC, teaming up, as is habitual for them, with Human Rights Watch, want to tell us things are as bad now as they were then (then being the time when Iraq had a legitimate ruler like Saddam). Well, they're not. The truth is all we were doing was removing the biggest thief and torturer in Baghdad- and his friends. It doesn't make angels of anyone, just vanquishes the devil within. Plus, of course, it's difficult really to imagine an elected devil- at least on this planet.

Facile, unnecessary and somewhat offensive headline of the day: ''World 'must learn from Holocaust'' - Annan, in BBC article.

Ok, it might be a significant anniversary, but what lessons can a man like Annan know of that Auschwitz can teach us?

At any given time there are half a dozen to many more canards being spread about and utilized by the manipulative left and the charlatan press. Off the top of my head, global warming hysteria, Abu Graib mania, WMD dyspepsia, 'militantism' of all stripes, are examples- and those are just a handful of the international ones. Each country has their own charlatan press and devious left it seems. Europe of course is swamped by them.

Anyway, Mark Steyn is champion bullshitbuster in my book, and popped another corpulent canard in his SunTimes article saturday. Nice one Mark (via Roger Simon):

'The Democrats' big phrase is "exit strategy." Time and again, their senators demanded that Rice tell 'em what the "exit strategy" for Iraq was. The correct answer is: There isn't one, and there shouldn't be one, and it's a dumb expression.'

ps. I also loved the intro- 'I picked up the Village Voice for the first time in years this week. Couldn't resist the cover story: ''The Eve Of Destruction: George W. Bush's Four-Year Plan To Wreck The World.''

Oh, dear. It's so easy to raise expectations at the beginning of a new presidential term.'

Exceptionally concise. Turning to British politics, in such a sad state that usually I steer clear with nose held tightly, I am faced with DumbJon's wonderfully compressed contempt for the current Conservative party. DJ's views are terse, which perhaps explains his lack of true fame, but I think he doesn't just hit the nail on the head, he smacks it through the wall. Exhilarating, or painful if you read his missive with your thumbs and fingers.

Two takes on the President's inaugural, plus mine.

I happened to see the President's inaugural speech the other day. That was some kind of luck, since I'd forgotten it was taking place, made no special plans previously, and would usually have been otherwise engaged. But, as I sat down with my tea and dunking biscuits with my day mostly over, I was offered what must have been the last two thirds of his stirring speech.

I tend to agree with William Kristol

'INFORMED BY STRAUSS and inspired by Paine, appealing to Lincoln and alluding to Truman, beginning with the Constitution and ending with the Declaration, with Biblical phrases echoing throughout--George W. Bush's Second Inaugural was a powerful and subtle speech.'

It was, to me, a literary speech, a speech with many levels. Not always artistic; sometimes the idea was merely to advance the plot. Always though it retained a sense of a story unfolding to which it was referring but also through the course of its rhetoric, advancing. I liked that.

David Frum had a different viewpoint, trying to accommodate the views of Peggy Noonan, which was very interesting, but to my mind the contribution of someone who wants to direct the parade rather than merely cheerlead. Frum's view is valid as a shot across the bows, and seems to reflect a certain unsteadiness when faced with rhetoric at a time when people like Frum want actions to sure up their support. With a man like Bush though, words can equate to actions, because he's a man renowned for actions rather than words. Thus I think it is appropriate for Bush not to pare down his words too much, since he always means what he says (when he's thought it through) and to say too little in such public circumstances is dangerous.

Fair enough to notice the irregularities in Bush's speech, but the criticism of the inclusion of the Koran in Bush's speech is a little shallow, as indeed are the fine points of rhetoric to a man that wishes to inspire honestly rather than to ossify his philosophy into an art. Yes, the Koran reference rang untrue, but sometimes the job of leadership consists in being seen to be fair in the here and now, rather than historically precise. Besides, the Koran does contain principles which, if applied in isolation from the jihadi mentality which is inspired by other parts of the Koran, do find echoes in the other two main faiths and US history too. It may seem a weak point to make, but to ignore the weak point just because weak would, I think, be damaging- sort of like a bad teacher praising only remarks that are 95+% right.

Overall I thought an exceptionally well thought-through speech which understood the occasion and showed a commitment to the job of leadership. Incidentally, I think you have to put it in the context of Bush's new team's recent activites as well. Condi Rice, for instance, in saying that the time of diplomacy is now, may have been saying really that the time for war may be later. Despite the apparent wooliness of parts of Bush's speech, I wouldn't conclude that there is a faint heart or a woolly mind to be found in the new Whitehouse.

(Insert: I'm experiencing blogger delay syndrome, which may be delaying the posting process- but I don't know what you all can see that I don't.)


Floating ideas. That's all I'm doing, as it seems that's what the BBC is doing with this report about the killing of a young Palestinian who seems to be have been shot by Israeli troops while playing with a toy gun. I say 'young', rather than 'boy', because the report can say only that he was '13 or 14'. I say 'seems', because the Israeli spokesman is quoted saying only that Israeli troops shot a suspected gunman. The only sources for the gun being a toy seem to have been Palestinian- although the nationalities of what they call 'witnesses' are not mentioned by the BBC.

I don't know about you but I was long past playing with toy guns when I was thirteen, and as we know how prevalent weapons are even among young Palestinian people it seems very strange anyone would want a toy one when he could have the real thing. Even allowing for that, the BBC should really make clear that when the Palestinians talk of 'toy guns' they may really mean replicas- which seem designed to give a vicarious thrill of 'militantism' (yeah, right). Strange too that he'd take a 'toy gun' along in a crowd in this way when many of his peers, there is no doubt, are sufficiently weaponised to know the significance of such an act. The recklessness of youth perhaps. Very reckless if so.

I also notice that the medical sources apparently knew what the boy had had for his birthday, and that the witnesses were witnesses to his birthday present as well as his death. Family perhaps, or close friends- but they couldn't give his exact age to the journalist, presuming an interview took place somewhere down the line. Even then possibly that ought to be mentioned by the report- as I am sure that's the kind of thing any court would like to know, and this is the court of public opinion the BBC are addressing.

It is of course possible to imagine scenarios when all the the above could be explained without questioning the veracity of the details of the story, but I wouldn't accept it without a good explanation- which the BBC doesn't provide.

Finally I'd say that the whole incident is so understandable from a military point of view (even the police in the UK have been similarly fooled, if such is the case), that I fail to see, almost, why the unfortunate death of one young person should be front page news at all.

Update: This might be a related theme.

Here is the text as it appeared to me (I am reproducing it here in case my views are undercut by subsequent stealthy edits).


'Israeli soldiers have shot dead a Palestinian boy who was playing with a toy rifle, after apparently mistaking him for a gunman.
Troops patrolling Tubas, a West Bank village near Jenin, fired at the boy, aged 13 or 14, after he aimed the toy weapon at them, witnesses said.

He was with a group of children who were taunting the soldiers.

An Israeli military source confirmed troops had opened fire on a crowd after spotting what appeared to be a gunman.

Palestinian medical sources said the boy, Salah Ikhab, died in an ambulance on his way to hospital after being shot in the chest.

Witnesses and medical sources told the AFP news agency the boy had been given the toy as a present for the Eid holiday.

Israeli troops in Gaza also shot and killed a 13-year-old boy, Salah Abu Alaes, as he was walking with his family near the entrance to Rafah's sprawling refugee camp, Palestinian hospital officials said.

The officials were not able to give details on the circumstances of the shooting and the Israeli army had no immediate comment.

The incidents came as Israeli military chiefs met Palestinian security officials to discuss ways to avert a major military offensive in the Gaza Strip, in response to attacks on Israelis.'

Someone Melanie often praises, by contrast to the below post, is Amir Taheri- who has written an insightful article for the NYP proposing Bush as both the initiator of the so-called neo-Conservative programme, and an expression of the will of the US public. That's more or less the reverse analysis of that offered by the left, especially the BBC- so I commend it strongly as it's likely to be true.

Mayor Ken and Qaradawi: a troublesome affair. I mentioned this way back, when the Beeb were trying to smooth the feathers of the body politic by covering for Qaradawi's lack of housetraining. No one it seems really cares much about the Beeb's role (merely a conduit after all), but Ken's not been so lucky, and he's having to defend himself at every turn. Melanie Phillips definitely doesn't set out to help him in this post, or Tony Blair for that matter:

'Livingstone is not fit to hold public office. When will Tony Blair be asked what he thinks about Livingstone’s support for Qaradawi? When will Blair be confronted with Livingstone’s support for Muslim Brotherhood ideas, against which Blair is ostensibly fighting across the world? When will Blair be held to account for this dangerous menace, in the person of the Mayor of London, to life, liberty and decency – a man who the Prime Minister himself cynically brought back from political exile into the Labour party, purely to prevent a haemorrhage of the Labour mayoral vote?'

George Bush is a great American leader. Even though I believe it on many grounds, I know it from the fact that only he could have got the BBC doing polls every other week saying how much (or rather, how little) the peoples of the world appreciate him. He is making our lazy Aunty work. Only under George W. Bush could the US have coaxed this level of activity from the world's formerly supine media (BBC huffing and puffing at the fore).

The Beeb's latest poll is generally risible, as they usually are (not mentioning, for example, that the press in most parts of the world is directing popular opinion against the US- led by... -I'd rather not repeat myself any more than necessary), and there's a headline, 'Global poll slams Bush leadership', to go with it. Then we are treated to such observations as that Latin American antipathy to GWB is surprising because 'the region has had less direct involvement in US foreign policy issues, says our correspondent.' I suppose we are led to wonder what the figures would have been like had they had direct experience, eh? We also find that

' Another surprise was India's support for Mr Bush. The poll found 62% believed his administration was positive for global security.

The BBC's Nick Bryant says the reason for this may be because the poll was carried out in cities where people have benefited economically from closer trade ties with the US.'

So they were bribed then, I gather. What was that Kerry (risible again in being upstaged by Barabara Boxer as he tried to lay into Condi Rice yesterday) said about a coalition of the bribed and the coerced?

Finally, given the headline of the story it was something of a surprise to read near the end of the article a caveat to all this Beeb sponsored doom and gloom:

'But Mr Kull says the results do not constitute a definitive world-wide majority, "suggesting there may be some underlying openness to repairing relations with the US".'

So, only a slamming from the world (and only, I suppose, of W's America), not a definitive world-wide majority. I imagine W and Condi will be relieved to hear it.

Update: Although I stand by my comments about Bush's quality, I think that the desire to contradict the Beeb perhaps limits more calm scrutiny. Belgravia despatch has some of that. via Instapundit.

Natural Partners

It should I suppose be obvious why the BBC and the UN are such natural partners. The BBC is the jewel in the crown of the nanny state that has, thanks to its old Empire network, gone global (oh where will all our- or even all their!- young minds go for enrichment should we not have Aunty Beeb?), and the UN loves telling people how to behave on the international stage. Naturally they have a lot to gossip about when they get together.

So how about Malta then? Those naughty Maltese have decided unilaterally that their island is not very big and that they are neatly placed as a stepping stone on the way to places and that therefore they can't go easy on scroungers, sorry, asylum seekers who come to their shores. Terrible. Somebody really ought to tell them off, make an example of them. I know, how about nanny UN and aunty BBC in tandem?

Or take that tsunami (again). Who is to teach the world the lessons it should learn unless Aunty Beeb and Nanny UN team up together under that nice mr Egeland (no sniggering please)- who must surely be a fine candidate for next UN Secretary General after Mr Annan decides he has done enough good for the international community.

Although nanny and aunty BBC are clearly of the same managerial sex, that should be no obstacle to a fruitful union between them, now should it? Not in this day and age?

Vital Statistics from A Tangled Web:

Number of Palestinian babies: fewer than you've been led to believe
Number of Palestinian liars: demonstrably more than they've let on.

Summing it up nicely

To add to the post below, this from Richard North seemed too perfect a complement to leave to an update of an update.

Frum nails the Harry incident as Roger Simon rethinks his proposed removal of the Royal family- see below post link for Roger's updated view. I'd add that I find it very strange that Harry hadn't learnt what a Nazi sympathiser his great uncle was, and acted accordingly.

Meanwhile the BBC has moved onto airing the views of Seymour Hersch.

Update- the BBC are also highlighting a UN report into world poverty which contains some of that hand-on-the-shoulder vague criticism which the BBC deigns to make of the UN. Less friendly is the association it leaves with the US:

'Our correspondent says it is an attempt to engage real change in the UN to go along with grandiose declarations.

Dr Sachs will say that the resources needed are well within the means of the world's richest nations.

Only five nations - Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden - have met their targets of providing 0.7% of GNP for development assistance.

The US, for example, spends only 0.15% of its GDP on development aid.'

In other words, to what do we owe the UN's grandiose statements, which fail to materialise, than the failure of the West, especially the US, to enable their materialisation through unstingy behaviour?

Leave aside all the development aid to Iraq. Discount the US' military involvement in Indonesia, and scrub out the generosity of business and the consumer in the world's foremost capitalist society, and that might, might just, be valid. But if the UN fails to command the respect of nations sufficient to see aid channelled through it, whose fault is that? Oh, and don´t forget to forget about Bush Aids package for Africa, or that 0.15% figure, which does so well to flesh out a boring and disquietening news report with prejudice, might not give so much knockabout media fun.

An end to everything except World Government.

Roger Simon calls for an end to the Royal Family. Ang. Bish. Richard Holloway says that God has already met His end. The BBC says that Sharon is causing an end to the 'Peace Process', and the BBC's Newsnight declares that the tsunami goes to show we all need a powerful UN with an activist Secretary General.

Yeah, right. (thanks to ATW for Holloway link)

Here's a vital commentary from a Lt. Cnl in Iraq. Yes, he's biting back at media critics. Yes, he's trying to influence the media war. Yes he may well have been assigned this task because of special skills he possesses, but he doesn't half make a good job of it.

For example:

'I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product -- cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so.'

Or, as he concludes:

'Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.'

There's so much sense in his comments I think the only sensible course of action is to read the whole thing.

Struck by the BBC frontpage. A frightening thought, I know, to be smacked by Auntie (and surely illegal? Not the thought, the act), but this is sometimes how the BBC's relentless agendarizing of the news can feel.

Take today's offering. We got the Beeb's classic suggestive quality when, virtually simultaneously, they report 'US concern over Iran human rights' and that US 'erodes' global human rights. The point, if there is one about these headlines, is that one reports someone's view like a point of view, whereas the other reports someone's view like a statement of fact, interrupted only by those dinky little quotemarks that could easily be mistaken for a textual smirk. One view happens to come from the US government elected to represent the views of 300 million people, the other from a human rights group elected by, well, no one, representing the views of, can I remember? I think it was a small group of professionals of various nationalities and backgrounds last time I checked their website.

Anyway, all this reporting of 'concerns' is a pretty pointless thing that makes even the UN seem newsworthy on a daily basis. Oh, I think I begin to understand now.

That wasn't the only under the belt blow delivered by the AuntyOnline today.

This report about the bomb attack in Gaza (or, more precisely, on the edge of Gaza), waited until the last line to mention that 'our correspondent says groups like Hamas are very keen to portray the Israeli withdrawal as a retreat under fire.'

This indeed is one half of the logic at work. The Beeb however failed to mention that the terrorists wish to prevent the Israelis from withdrawing from Gaza by making it politically impossible to do so- i.e. presenting it as an Israeli retreat under fire. They know Sharon will not accept even a whiff of Israeli defeat, and wish him to be pushed into appearing to fit the image reserved for him by the world's opinion- that of unjust occupier. The Beeb play up the Palestinian leadership's 'peace' role, and play down the pressures faced by the Israelis. Plus ca change.

Needless to say, they did not fail to mention that, in their own words, ' The attack followed Israeli raids in the Gaza Strip earlier on Thursday in which two Palestinians were killed.'

Certainly sounds like the cycle of violence is whirring away in BBC newsthink as usual.

Given the above, this Mark Thatcher affair didn't need to be overdone. Too much icing on the cake might oversweeten it.

I think I mentioned Paul Reynolds' almost facetious article, 'Iraq 2004: what went wrong?'

Actually I tried to parody it- but really that was frustrating as it was too easy.

I think though that Reynolds has been producing many good examples of a dominant school of thought, the kind that likes simple narratives of western (or, even better, US) failure and which considers considering the opinions of anyone more positive to the West than itself to be showing exemplary fairness. In this article Reynolds clearly feels he's covering himself by quoting Sir Jeremy Greenstock, former UK ambassador to the UN.

If he'd really wanted to introduce balance he'd have consulted someone like Norman Podhoretz, who actually thinks about what George Bush thinks (and, from a political point of view, it's GWB who really counts in a sensible political analysis) rather than sounding off to echo the popular trends set by the likes of the BBC.

He encapsulates Reynolds' attitude perfectly in this superb article for Commentary:

'The idea here is that Iraq represents the first great test to which the Bush Doctrine has been put, and that the count is now in on its miserable failure. The retrograde "red-state voters" may have been hoodwinked by the lies emanating from the White House and the Pentagon and amplified by Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel, but everyone who knows anything knows that Bush’s entire foreign policy now lies buried under the rubble of Baghdad and the smaller cities of the Sunni triangle.'

If this sounds like a charicature then it's not accidental. These people, especially people like Reynolds, spend all their time thinking in charicatures- charicatures designed to chasten and wound to further their political agenda. It's their stock in trade. Unfortunately for them what goes around comes around. (via Powerline)

Actually I loved David Frum's language lesson (if you like words, you'll like this). It seems as though Brent Scowcroft was trying to have his cake, and eat it- like so many on the left of any argument.

Sourcing our Satisfactions.

I have to be careful in this matter, since in the boastful world of political life observers of that life can find they are taking satisfaction in the failures of institutions which actually have very serious responsiblities.

Yes, I am a critic of the UN, but over its failures the critic is often vocal, the criticised and their allies are often evasive or agressively defensive, while the third party, the failed one, is silent. I am even more tempted to crow when the BBC makes blunders, but again there is a very serious side to that.

It's similar regarding France. I am a critic of that country's leadership on so many issues (or rather, their lack of leadership combined with a complaining, critical and patronising hauteur- yes such a thing really can exist at the level of national governments), but French failings (like anyone's), have consequences.

So, I found this masterly recountation of French media coverage of France's 'failings' over their tsunami response 'satisfying' on several levels. The main one was that at last 'France 2' as Douglas describes it, is speaking out against 'France 1'. The secondary one is that the attitude of France towards the role of its military (heading for a Eurocorps, eschewing Iraq but embracing- kind of- the Ivory Coast) was too irrational to secure a decent French military response when French pride was on the line- which satisfies the need we have that what goes up must be seen to come down etc.

But then of course there are the victims, which, although strictly not our victims, nonetheless suffer too much to appreciate this kind of farce. (my thanks to the ever-aware EuroRef. blog who found this, and are always raising a voice for the underdog.)

Another reason I have to be careful, of course, is that 'saving face' is one of the lowest motives for successful action, and shame can be misused.

In the UN bashing business (entirely legitimate on the basis of supply and demand) there seems to be no better port of call than the Diplomad (as I mentioned previously), although I'm always slightly worried when people very close to situations are blogging in a popular way, fearing that someone senior to them my just tell them to stop sometime. I don't think the same can happen to Tim Blair, who has also put together some excellent posts on the UN, like this one.

Blair also pointed me to this superb, almost definitive one would have to say, article critical of the UN by David Frum. I think Frum is great: witty, thoughful, articulate (you can find his NRO blog in my links, at the bottom). In fact I can't think of a better advertisement for the art of column-building. There's always a touch of moralism, a little wisdom of a private kind, in what he writes- such as in his conclusion to his analysis of the 'special place' the UN occupies in the well-thinking left:

'But the real challenge to all of us, in all the democracies, is this: to be guided by realities, not fantasies - and especially not such uniquely unconvincing fantasies as the allegedly unique moral authority of the United Nations.'

In other words, Clare Short, go and acquire some judgement from somewhere.

But meanhile, back at the ranch, the BBC is showing off what must be the strangest construction still left over from the Victorian Age of moralism: its scales of mediatorial judgement.

The Beeb have a report about the UN-Oil-for-food programme, which is, like Volcker's report itself, quite conservative. Then they have this rather more colourful story about homelessness in the USA, called 'Homelessness in a land of plenty' . Why do I always feel the BBC are trading a story they don't want to report, but must, with a report they shouldn't need (like some latter days unwelcome Dickens) to keep disinterring, but do? And why is the former one of kleptocrats in high places the only story that comes over with all its colour drained?

Even while stealing the show from Koffi, Jill 'quivering' Mcgivering's tiny Tim gets a breakfast of 'porridge and bagels, and eggs and hot coffee.' from a local church, which left me thinking 'please please please make me homeless in that part of America rather than housed where I am'


Ok, perhaps it seems a little unfair to the BBC to cut n' paste their coverage so savagely as I have in the penultimate paragraph above, to make my favoured points. However, if the Beeb gave adequate weight to the many (too many, surely, for cossetted Beebies) unwelcome stories out there (they know what they are), perhaps there would be no room at the inn for vacuous moral statements.

Rumbling Abu : emerging slightly dazed from under a heap of the BBC's beatification of Abu Mazen (or whatever he's called), and now following his election 'glory', Nicholas Vance makes the important point, that Orla and co. fail to mention, about

'statements by Mazan (co-founder of the Fatah terrorist organisation) announcing that he had no intention of seeking the end to all terrorist attacks against the "Zionist enemy.'

He continues,

'To say that Abu Mazan "is opposed to violence" is very generous, indeed. It would be more accurate to say that he has on occasion — depending on his audience — proposed a temporary ceasefire," '.

This makes it imperative for Sharon not to get into bed with Mazen. Luckily Sharon's already built a fence between them to reduce the temptation, and Mazen will have to eat his words if such pillow talk is actually to take place- early meetings notwithstanding.

I am sure we will all watch that space.

A succinct argument from IraqtheModel for calling terrorists terrorists. It seems to me that this is one of the issues- a one word issue- where the peoples of the world have the right to feel most aggrieved by the moral failure of their media. Needless to say, the BBC have figured very strongly in this failure.

Meanwhile, speaking of terrorists...

Later... Also, just to note- a terrific reposte from AE Brain to the BBC's tsunami conpiracy page (via B-BBC commenter).

Natalie's in storming form at B-BBC as she rounds on the Beeb (again, quite rightly) over the way they've stirred up the tsunami conspiracy 'theorists' (ahem). 'Irresponsible' is the BBC editorial staff's middle name.

Meanwhile I'm taking some advice and blogrolling the Diplomad, which has excelled in giving the UN the back of the hand it deserves.

Just to add to the above tsunami theme, Arthur Chrenkoff has a list of his top tsunami idiot-savants.

Covering the States

It might sound as though I'm inviting obsessiveness, but I really believe there would be a place out there for a blog devoted purely to covering the coverage the BBC extends to the US. Many good Americans are already concerned about this, and express their concerns, amongst others, at blogs like Last Night's BBC News and USS Neverdock, but really there should be no shame in a blog dedicated to tracking US coverage by the BBC, for several good reasons.

First of all there's the fact that the BBC coverage of US matters is large and growing. They are, I am quite sure, more fascinated by America than by any other country or any other region of the world. The BBC, as any voracious grazing mammoth might be, is constantly attracted to the nutrious plains of the USA newsscape. If its bad, and happens in the USA, the BBC is almost guaranteed to label it so and proclaim it.

There is a deeper reason though, which I find more disturbing. That is that the BBC is one of those remaining British institutions most intertwined with our history as a colonial power. Not only, therefore, does the notion of a neo-colonial US stimulate the sensitively attuned nostrils of the former British Empire Service, it also reawakens their appetite to influence history as it used to do in times of yore.

Even worse is that the BBC has for many years considered itself the conscience of the British nation, and consequently charged with expiating the sins of the past. So we have a post-colonial broadcaster, laden with a weight of the intellectual fashion to consider the British Empire a dirty compound noun, which nonetheless cannot deny its appetite for power and influence. A dangerous British brew, I continue to believe- that can be observed quite well from this post at LNBBCN.

So, when I see a vast array of anti-American articles expressed at BBC online (sometimes just a crucial word or two, determining the flow of the reader's thought), including utterly indefensible ones such as this, highlighted by Natalie at BBBC, and sentiments to match that across the BBC's networks, I think I know what is happening: the BBC is taking up the task of policing the policeman which it believes its forebear failed to do when it was the British Empire Service. For an example of that, the BBC's obsession with Guantanamo and abu Graib is a notable, continuing theme- as this LNBBCN post illustrates. What's bad about this general trend in particular is that it's a reflexive reaction to the criticisms of the British Empire that were mainly coaxed along by socialist and communists, and later splinters from those movements such as feminists, ecofreaks and race-warriors.

Thus we get ad infinitum negativity about the US', at best a faintness of praise when praise is truly deserved, and regular chances to bash the US in the solar plexus on the BBC's airwaves.

Mark Steyn is undoubtedly emerging from his early winter hibernation. That's great news, and in the meantime, while expecting little from him , I overlooked these trenchant comments on the environmental blather of our day. Maybe you did too. Different from his usual, and typically good.

More non-Reynolds (-previous post) UN/US aid effort comparisions in this NBR report via the Instapundit:

'As news media are increasingly dominated by footage of US, Australian and regional military forces actually delivering aid to stricken survivors of the Boxing Day tsunami, UN officials are carping about housing in major cities far removed from the front lines and passing around elaborate business cards.'

People I generally agree with, but...

Having (I guess) disagreed with Chrenkoff in my last post, I suppose I can broach another disagreement with a favourite site- A Tangled Web.

These guys are forthright and, to take one example where I appreciate this, it's in their forthright condemnation of the Republican fudge over power-sharing and violence in Ulster.

However, I disagree with them that Ariel Sharon is wrong in his guidance of Israel.

First I would say you have to judge a man by his enemies. Sharon is the enemy of the all the right people, and as Oliver Kamm says, has built a consenus in favour of defensive organisation around the fence and aggressive pursuit of Palestinian terrorists. This seems a balance around which Israeli opinion can cohere and remain firm. Gone will be all the rogue peace conferences between 'moderates' from Israel and charlatans from the rest of the world.

The enemies? Oh to speak from personal knowledge, the BBC and the British left- including much of New Labour (though not, I would say, Tony Blair himself directly). Excellent enemies to make! I wish the Conservatives could do the same. Melanie Phillips adds more.

Secondly, to refer back to Ireland, the willingness of the Israelis to hit back against Palestinian terrorists is a stark contrast to the UK policy of rapprochement with Sinn Fein. As CNN always quote Tony Blair, sometimes war brings a chance of peace.

Well, those are my two basic reasons, but look who hates Israel under Sharon according to Fred Siegel, and I think even David Vance ought to agree that the Israeli Prime MInister must be doing something right.

Brownie points for Reynolds.

Kudos, I suppose, to Paul Reynolds who received a 'read the whole thing' commendation from Arthur Chrenkoff as he rounded up news from the tsunami disaster.

Just a couple of points of criticism remain for me to make (and by the way, this is not a Reynolds-bash-based blog! I just happen to find that Mr Reynolds' judgements part of the BBC's faulty intellectual engine room).

Talking about the political fallout from disasters and governmental responses to it, Reynolds says that 'The perception of the United States in the world has been changed for the better, with the rapid despatch of a US aircraft carrier to ferry help by helicopter to the survivors in Aceh.'

Aside from the fact that the US response was only notable in the context of the inability or, more likely, unwillingness of others (eg. Indonesia's large military) to assist, particularly in Aceh, the implication is that the US somehow upped its game from a previously low level. Note that the perception (subjective) was changed by actions of aid-giving from the US (real)- therefore the previous perception must have been the consequence of real actions (or real 'inactions', but I find it difficult to believe the US is really viewed as lacking in willingess to act in a humanitarian fashion), like invading Iraq, just to pick as random example.

Reynolds says that the US had been in the doghouse because they acted without considering the UN (repeating a fashionable and self-fulfilling mantra), but the real issue is not the US' redemption by good works (which may be a French but is certainly not a US' ethos), but the vacuity and ineptitude of a UN that talks big and acts little. By a little faint praise of Bush's crew, Reynolds can do what he does best: temper the perception of the failings of the UN.

For the real analysis of the UN's actions we can only turn to people like Wretchard of the Belmont Club, who has been systematically dissecting the UN response to the tsunami in posts like this one.

Reynolds makes out that Colin Powell is the hero of the hour, massaging UN and US relations, when in fact the key to the good publicity the US has gained is that the UN have not been even at the starting line to make an impact on the disaster, and the heroic thing the US did was to ignore the UN and go alone effectually (not as quickly as I would have liked, but fast enough to catch the media attention). This go it alone ethos (or vast network of bilateral relations, as I prefer to call it) also enabled a successful invasion of Iraq. What ought to be seen in tandem, therefore, as a consistently successful policy of fairly consistently ignoring the UN, Reynolds wants to separate- in his usual obfuscatory fashion.

It's kind of reminiscent of all the other faint praise Liberals have made it their business to slap onto the Bush admin.: Colin Powell saves lazy Bush's bacon.

That's an analysis I don't for a moment believe, and never have.

Putting those issues aside for a moment though, I will acknowledge the breadth of Reynolds' allusions as being worthy of a link, anyway- thus preserving both my disagreement with Reynolds and my unbroken admiration of Arthur.

Oi, Beeb, what went wrong?

2004 was a bad year in the Beeb's history (at the link Melanie Phillips summarises the BBC's troubles after the Hutton Report, last January), except for those of us who would like to see the BBC as history, in which case it went grimly well.

Coming into 2004 there were still some optimists who believed the BBC could be saved from its legions of ideologues. There are fewer now, as the depth of the BBC's recalcitrance is clearer by the month, and its resistance to looking in the mirror when it comes to analysing the overmighty and incompetent grows ever deeper.

Maybe 2005 will be better, but it's difficult to see how if this article from Paul Reynolds is anything to go by.

I think that Arthur Chrenkoff's overt approach to 'Good News from Iraq' is obviously far more up front and factually based than any of Reynolds' anti-Iraq war propaganda masquerading as informed and balanced opinion. The latest Chenkoffian item here.

Meanwhile I don't think Chrenkoff mentioned Logan, but here he is, via IraqtheModel.

BBC cutting edge journalism: 'The World Shows its Compassion'

That was the headline yesterday on BBCWorld. As an introduction to a journalistic item it's mind-numbingly moralising. As invaluable Andrew at B-BBC has pointed out , the BBC has an interesting way of presenting even the donation of aid in a politicised way. The discreditation of the Beeb is surely gathering pace by their own actions, which is sad in a way.

Such headlines as the BBC's above are really another way of hastening the process whereby the world, ostrich-like, puts its head in the sand. I hope this doesn't happen as completely as in the past when the world has briefly felt its pulse quicken, but if it doesn't it'll be no thanks to the Beeb.

Reading this post from Helen Szamuely at Euro-Ref. blog, I couldn't help smiling a little and wanting to bill it 'everything you'll never hear examined on the Beeb'. It sort of starts where I left off two days ago, with extra bonus points for hitting harder and longer.

In a similar vein the Diplomad offers an antidote to the surfeit of fawning praise being directed at the UN as the only organ capable of coordinating international aid. In the UK we have double or treble helpings of this staple food thanks to a combination of the BBC, the New Labour machine and assorted journalistic sycophants. (from Arthur Chrenkoff)

Meanwhile, another lady I know has been extremely miffed with the BBC in many areas, but especially over Iraq and Israel. The argument I am familiar with; it doesn't change. Truth usually comes in with a certain immutability, I find. Melanie Phillips goes back to basics in tearing strips off the seemingly mentally retarded legions of journalists led by the BBC.

Those who live, learn.

There's no doubt we will learn a lot from this Tsunami disaster (I still think the key lesson is to have a fleet of helicopters at the ready in all regions of the earth for natural disaster relief on the instant, but there are others). Unfortunately from the world's perspective we learn too late and our contributions are more about our emotions than about saving the lives of others. Of course I wouldn't want to dismiss any act of charity, but when the Premiership gets in on the situation you know we've crossed a line from the rational to the showbiz end of things.

It has entered my mind watching the reports that there's very little to be done since almost everybody in need could find their critical needs met by friends or relatives just a few miles inland. Aceh province in Indonesisa is obviously different- but I don't get the sense that we're geared up to provide assistance there yet. We've only just got round to considering the Maldives. Then again, given the disaster in Indonesia, will there be anyone to donate anything to? Precious few, if this kind of report is true (and in this disaster I tend to believe the biggest figures I'm offered) Or will the few survivors be buried under a tidal wave of castoff clothing?

Whatever the truth behind the above musings, I know that Laban Tall is right when he says that 'The Indian Ocean disaster is a heaven sent opportunity for liberal breast-beating into which can be shoehorned the correct views on globalisation'.
I frankly couldn't believe it today when I heard (on Sky) that a British Scientist was saying that the tsunami shows the risk we face from global warming, as if that had anything to do with the price of fish!