Returning to Simpson.

Yesterday my reaction to the BBC's World Affairs Editor's view of the Jordan bombings was swift and visceral. I think that some commenters at Biased BBC were right in saying that it was a piece of propaganda, and I would say that's a tendancy the BBC are showing more and more frequently. Not that I care that much, but it endangers their future in broadcasting.

Trying to drag King Abdullah in as a critic of the US, and effectively blame the US for the bombings in Jordan is really extraordinary. I wonder how such reporting would be viewed by the Jordanian royals, should they encounter it- even though Simpson couched it in diplomatic and ingratiating language.

Simpson claimed that the Al Qaeda bombings represented 'a wave of anger and violence' which had been predicted by Abdullah might be the consequence of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. C'mon Simpson, that's nonsense. Two years have passed since that time, and this is the result, not of the Arab street which was the anti-war argument behind such warnings, but of vicious Islamist terrorism, which was vicious and violent in the region long before 2003.

From Simpson's report you would anticipate that the reaction of the Jordanians would be to blame GWB for Zarkawi's terrorism. In fact it seems rather different to that.

According to NYS's Eli Lake

'Only hours after the suicide bombings Wednesday, citizens marched silently in the streets in solidarity with the victims. Banners damning Mr. al- Zarqawi and his band to hell hang on storefronts and apartment buildings. But the effect of the bombings is perhaps best observed in the hometown of the man who ordered them.

When asked about Zarqa's most notorious son, Mr. Suleiman's craggy face tightened under his red and white headdress and he pointed holes in the air to emphasize his disdain. "Zarqawi is kufr," Mr. Suleiman said, using the Arabic word for a nonbeliever, the preferred slur of Islamic fundamentalists like Mr. al-Zarqawi who favor it when speaking of infidels.'

In other words, what we are seeing is more of the results of the central front in the War on Terror becoming Iraq: the isolation of the Islamofascists within the Islamic world of their origination, as they are forced to do ever more desperate works of evil to preserve their 'face' in the region.

Simpson though is almost blind to this. His notion of reasoning is to say that 'it was King Abdullah, and not Mr Wolfowitz or Mr Feith, who got it right.'

This is madness- Bush-derangement syndrome- such that Simpson has to use a murderous (but one must say isolated, in the Jordanian context) bombing, twisting it unfairly in with Abdullah's reasoning over two years ago, all to bash a couple of people to whom Simpson feels ideological and maybe personal anatagonism.

But then let's move onto John Simpson's notion of 'investigation'. When he talks about Knight-Ridder's report about one of the terrorists who was allegedly involved he says that this man was radicalised in his hatred of the US by events in Fallujah- he attributes this to Knight-Ridder's 'investigation'. In fact, the information was simply direct from the Mufti who was in charge of Fallujah before the US retook it. A great impartial source no doubt who 'said Ali's anti-American stance was hardened after he was detained by U.S. forces in the same mosque where a Marine shot to death an unarmed Iraqi man in a controversial incident captured on video by an embedded American TV journalist. The military ruled the shooting justified.'
KR go onto say that he was aready fighting the US troops at the time.

And there is of course the little problem that the terror attack was in Jordan, and therefore not where the majority of Americans in the ME are to be found at the moment.

All in all then we can see that Simpson's analysis, such as it is, represents a terribly ingrained kind of spin, and journalism as settling scores. If that's what the BBC calls good journalism- and they certainly tried to adorn his article with unadulterated praise from the lickspittle leftists of the online world- then they're finished.

PS- this is a good article from the Weekly Standard dealing with the issue of terrorism and the Iraq war, and the supposed link between the two in terms of events like Jordan. I shudder to think by now what would have happened in terms of the terrorism threat internationally had the US not invaded Iraq. It's the parallel history Simpson and others can conveniently ignore.

Simpson senility?

That's the only explanation I can think of for John Simpson's inflexible and dogmatic approach to the news at the moment. Everything goes back to the war in Iraq- the source of all evil. Hear this Mr Simpson- you were a friend of Saddam's regime; you assisted its members. You are totally partial where it is concerned, and rabid in your contempt for the US administration. That would be ok were it not that you continually use your pedestal at BBC News online to peddle your politics- but you show contempt for impartiality and a totalitarian concept of what is 'given' in your analyses. I really can't stand it- it's repulsive.

Isn't it disgraceful when a BBC journalist talks about the 'victory' of an anti-Iraq war analysis instead of analysing the aftermath of a terrorist bombing in Jordan?

Mind blowing interpretation

Much as I respect people who actually go into areas and get close to the people who are at the centre of news stories like the French riots (which revived a little last night as upwards of 500 cars were torched)- Patrick Belton of Oxblog's reports are more than a bit surreal. This one, for example- an except from an email to a friend- states that

'There's nothing religious at all to the riots; these aren't kids who reference religion at all, except to claim to you (possibly with some exercise of imagination) that they have friends in Guantanamo, and they might perhaps add Israel, Jews, and Sharon to France, Sarkozy, the police, and other people whose names in their drunken, possibly drugged, and excited invocations follow after the French equivalent of 'Fuck'.'

I mean, really, we can have different interpretations of data, but the prevalence of Israel, Sharon and Guantamo in their imprecations suggests the kind of mental profile which would dovetail perfectly with any Osama Bin laden broadcast! Add in the fact that youths use the slogans they use partly with the listeners in mind (ie. they choose slogans they think have the widest possible resonance, rather than ones reflecting the esoteric preoccupations of their cohorts), and I see absolutely no reason to conclude there is no religious dimension to the riots- the opposite, in fact.

Went looking for a post and found history

Of course there's always a debate about when history becomes history. Traditionalist though I am, I think history's a present perfect subject- therefore history is what brings us up to now. That's what makes the present so interesting; the fact that events now may be as life-shaping, indeed, must be as life shaping, as events 'then'- whenever that was.

That's why the riots in France (which I assume to be waning) have fascinated me. People have said that riots are part of the culture in France, which may be so, but when people draw comparisons with 1968 trying to reassure, what they forget is that those events actually heralded a new political era in France. The events of 1968 were different in that they involved what we would call traditional protest methods which turned ugly (probably designedly so on the part of the rioters). Still, they indicated profound change. Profound. Change.

More pertinent, perhaps, might be a comparison with Kristallnacht- at least in terms of violent destruction. What's missing in the efforts of the banlieues today, of course, is the really personal, racial and murderous dimension. But I remember being taught about Kristallnacht and being shocked, not by the violence, but by the fact that many people appeared not to realise what it portended. I remember thinking that people don't go around wrecking in that way without having some major intentions behind their actions.

Well, as Adloyada pointed out, we've just passed the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

but she also points out something important, an altogether different type of public protest which, almost incredibly, but somehow predictably, seems to be totally absent from the BBC's pages- a reported 150,000 person march against Al Qaeda in Morocco. In other words, muslims against terrorism- a movement for which we've been waiting and waiting. Adloyada also points out the background to this, which makes it seem a well-founded movement. I noted recently that the laws France has recoursed to were introduced to deal with events outside 'mainland France'- a euphemism for their Empire. Well, Morocco, away along the coast from Algeria where the laws had their baptism, has had things a little more peaceful than Paris just recently.

I find this event incredibly hopeful, even if it is a march with narrow self-interest at its heart (since it's a march inspired by Al Qaeda's expressed intention to kill two Moroccan nationals held by them in Iraq); even if it was a Government blessed event. It's my hope that as radical Islam spread its wings and tries to effectively strong-arm its way onto the political high-table, it will attentuate, losing its mass in areas it considers historical strongholds (eg. Iraq) and finally be snuffed out where it tries its hand at some old-fashioned Caliph-style action. Morocco may have tended to be among the more liberal arab nations, but still, the signs of popular anti-terror feelings are the kind of positive signs it's difficult to detect anywhere in western Europe right now. I might be tempted to say 'about time too'- but you can't say that to history.

Just to make a final point- one reason I care about history is that, though I have no kids of my own yet, I have nieces and nephews (two of each- all delightful, all too rarely seen). I will also (God willing- at 29) live a while yet myself. Mark Steyn makes broadly this point in his latest deeply appealing effort for the Spectator- the personal dimension I mean- and so does a new fave of mine, Tom Tyler on his blog (I will link this blog permanently. I will. I will- and half a dozen others I've taken a shine to). Come to think of it, without the family dimension- the future dimension that only a family can secure-, Adloyada wouldn't be writing her thoughtful and historically sensitive posts for me to make use of.

Btw- an aside. Natalie's biographer was right about something in particular re: yours truly. Can you guess what it is? Eh, Mark? No, actually, seriously, I am not worthy. yet.

All it takes is

'a normally intelligent person looking at the facts, and their rather obvious implications, without the blinding effect of a politically correct mentality.'

I also 'hearted' this too.

In search of balance concerning the French riots, I found this excellent analysis/summary from Donald Sensing.

After the voices of reason have spoken...

to tell us that the riots in France (the analysis of Steven Den Beste- the best of an uninspiring bunch) are/were the product of (that ever satisfying) combination of factors- rather than having any obvious source (which might require painful or controversial action) it's useful (as in a chess match when the opponent blocks a sequence of moves) to step back and try a new approach.

Thus I found it a help to be reminded by The Adventuress about the Danish riots which have been occurring at the same time as the French ones. Here, one must agree, Islam is the cause of the unrest (unless one likes blaming innocuous cartoonists. I was, however, reminded of this award winner, and it makes an interesting contrast). I also thoroughly agree with her analysis of the French riots- their essentially psychological intent, or as Irene puts it, 'training for dhimmis'. Listening to some of the 'voices of reason' out there you'd think that such a idea as 'collective consciousness' had never been developed (which is not even to go near the obvious whiff of orchestration in the grubby banlieues)

Naturally I don't wish to stir the pot...

But while we're talking about Islamist violence, this is a great article by Christopher Hitchens about Darfur. I've kept my trap shut about this for many months, fearing I had overinterpreted the role of Islamists. It seemed and seems clear to me that blacks in Africa were used by Islam as slaves, and that unlike in the West such activities have never really been recanted. In this context, 'ethnic cleansing' has a different context to the generally imagined one here in the West (which is only suggesting the legacy of the slaver mentality- not ignoring, of course, the reality of slavery's existence to this day). Reading Hitchens' I was ashamed to have been ashamed- despite the fact that my post well over a year ago is a fave from the Google archive which often brings web surfers here.

Blog overdrive: Sure, if you want to get reasonable...

Then let's talk about the thesis that there's no real link to Islamism in the Paris riots.

First of all, I've noted analyses like that of J.S. at the Beeb, which essentially blame racism and the Right for the Paris riots. The trouble is that Simpson said, tellingly, that if Chirac had been pro the Iraq war he'd be in even worse trouble now. Sounds suspiciously like when the Left are on the offensive on this they are prepared to admit there's a link to Islamic concerns.

Adloyada has a clever and personal take on this idea. Of course I see her point, just as I would acknowledge that the poisonous and anti-intellectual environment typical of many British schools may have grounded the London bombers in their sense of grievance (been there, didn't get no t-shirt). One would, however, hope that the guys she dated in the sixties are grown up enough now not to let their children's generation, ahem, run riot.

I also take the point that we have overblown our responses to the Paris events, somewhat- a thesis advanced by Clive Watkins and Patrick Belton, among others.

Yet I have some serious issues with an analysis which sees the riots as without an Islamic foundation. Yes, that seems strong, but I think reasonable.

One reason is that when people call the riots the 'intifada', the comparison is not so silly. When the BBC and others interview Palestinians what they get is not Islamist rhetoric but basically social sob stories. Thus what the kids on the street say and what they mean by what they are doing may- indeed must- be quite different, just as many Palestinians say publicly they are humiliated and privately that Israel has no right to exist and should be wiped off the map (not tring to say that what they say doesn't matter, just that the great rush to believe simple motives underlie violent acts is highly suspect).

Another is the extent of the riots, and their targeting of a great media-attention grabbing tactic- that of burning cars (more of them, progressively, every night, thereby getting the best dissemination in the media). One can't help noticing how good these look on tv or in photos, or that so few people have actually died in the rioting (one, I believe so far). The media, as it is for the palestinians and for the Iraqi terror groups, is the chief target- but horses for courses, here it's cars and not people that are gone for. It's noticeable how they've found a statistically impressive yet accessible target- so we can do the 'car bodywork count' in Paris as we have in Iraq.

Returning to the extent of the riots, it's difficult to believe that there is no coordination in such a wildfire spread of disorder. For one thing there have been reports of at least one cocktail bomb factory being found. Was there no coordination in 1968, I wonder? There may be mullahs on the streets preaching calm, but that only shows that they have some influence, or that they have an audience, thus disproving the non-islamic thesis. If the riots are only half muslim, then presumably we could send a liberal priest out preaching in the same areas with similar security? Furthermore, what we are hearing then is the official muslim response- whereas we know that was is significant is the grassroots muslim one. The recent history of these areas suggests, that with anti-Jewish behaviour and Islamofascist comedians, the youth are highly politicised and savvy.

Finally, there is the political nature of what is going on, and the targeting of the only effective right-winger, Sarkozy, which uncle Tom Cobbly has even reported. Such reports often emphasise that Sarkozy is to blame for his 'rhetoric' and heavy handedness- but that is to agree with the pre-existing grievances of the rioters. These are political, and we know that Islam is a very political religion. It may not be about to try a takeover in France, but it is certainly manoeuvering for more power and influence, and one can see these riots very much as part of that process (putting the iron glove over the demographic fist). To suggest that they are really about the kids is nonsense, I believe.

Enough- all I will say in conclusion is that the anti-hype dismissals of some of the blogosphere's loftier voices strike me as mere cant, whereas those who identify the Islamic fundamentals as present in this situation really seem to cover all the angles (not dissavowing social context, but including it as part of something wider). Thus it is they who really seem to be calling un chat un chat.

Irony-eating surrender monkeys

Let me begin by bashing the liberal media, the US one, at that. But, ok, let me back up for a moment: I was stood-up recently by an American lady journalist(very pretty and very liberal, a radio journalist perhaps because she was't, quite, that pretty). We met on a train and she promised to visit me, took my address etc after we'd had a long conversation over the noise of the rickety train we were on, and then failed completely to get in touch, even to say she'd changed her mind about coming.

But anyway, I'm not bitter. It's just that reading this article (Via Tim Blair , with reg. required but v., v. easy) made me think again about my observations about er, 'my' young lady- that beneath the superficial worldiness there may have been a lack of confidence about the world around her. The writer of the article in question was writing 'from London about Paris', and said confidently- among other observations such as “The Paris riots are actually a splendid demonstration of the successful integration of immigrants into French culture ...” - that 'About half the kids burning cars and buildings are white, working-class, post-Christian French, and they get along with the black and Muslim kids just fine.'

The first line I could accept- in a satire; I'd call it classic British irony. The second really smacks of having been written (no, not 'on smack'), but in London- and a nice part, at that. Some of the banlieues worst affected don't have many white kids in to riot. Even if the riots happened in Finsbury Park, London, I wouldn't be caught saying the racial ratios are fairly reassuring, because there too white faces are more notable by their absence than their presence. 'Half-white riots' in such an area would be almost impossible from any point of view. Whatever- if I were to make a suggestion to the US media to improve their worldwide credibility it would be not to pretend that London is like Paris, or that you can call an eyewitness account credible when it is from another country, even one not so many miles away. It's a bit like the 'eyewitness accounts' from the Baghdad hotel bar which have been misinforming us so regularly for the last several years.

Meanwhile, also in the news but belonging to the Private Eye end of the news, the zeropeans are sending a probe to Venus (no, not 'into', thankfully). Having found Mars all too hard and masculine, they've apparently decided that Venus is a much more soft and consensual target. They probably expect to find more zeropeans there, too- which could come in handy to reverse the arabisation of Europe.

Meanwhile, John Simpson makes understanding the BBC's position (which has been mixed enough to create confusion) nice and clear. The BBC's World Affairs editor says

'Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister, now seems to be playing politics with the situation by appealing to the most basic and resentful attitudes of conservative France.'

Simpson also blames the French system for its neglect of the immigrant 'burbs, yet for most of the period he cites (30 years) it had leftist politicians like Mitterand in charge, and Chirac is hardly of the robust right. Now suddenly Sarkozy's at fault (not a mention of France's generous social welfare system, the French model etc), when he hasn't even had a serious bite at the governing cherry. Just who is playing politics, mr Simpson? France, if it is a failure, is a leftist failure- the leftists who triumphed in 1968. Simpson is not trying to explain history but to cover it up, to whitewash. Nice Snow job, mr Simpson.

(of course, that's not to mention the sly and unreasonable introduction of the Iraq conflict, trying to head off the critique that Chirac's Iraq policy has brought no domestic dividends- a very workable proposition, unlike the one that his criticisms of the US and UK have been 'thoroughly borne out')

When Algeria comes to France (1,117- not bad for a monday night):

According to the Beeb:

'Mr de Villepin said the curfews would be imposed under a 1955 law which allows a state of emergency to be declared in all or parts of France.

The law was originally passed to combat violence in Algeria in its war of independence against France from 1954-1962.'

When one feels like pillaging the Guardian...

This Viking does, anyway. He points out one of the most awful misuses of inverted commas seen anywhere, and much else which merits the thorough utilisation of his email links to the Guardian editorial team.

Needless to say, I don't read the Guardian, or I wouldn't have any blood left to boil. I remember years ago my Dad bought it for a month or two, 'as an experiment'- and even then I wondered why he had a newspaper that evaded commonsense and distorted the relatively simple into some hodge-podge of sentimental pink-tinged porridge.

The viking also notes that Sarkozy is the target of the Left. Some coincidence there, since he's also the target of the intifadists- yes, it's probably time the word was 'bandied round' after the authorities came across an unusual cocktail factory. In fact, as one of the 'boys' and 'girls' the BBC highlights says,


'We want Mr Sarkozy to resign, or the violence will continue. He is too scared to come here and talk to us himself. We don't think we'll ever get jobs'

So, the rioters want Sarkozy to resign, as do his rivals Chirac and Vilepin, as do the Guardian (clearly)- and the BBC weren't too shy about booting it to Sarko (a bit) at the beginning of events:

'Nicolas Sarkozy - the straight-talking right-winger who is France's interior minister - normally thrives on the kind of acute law-and-order crisis that the country is currently going through.'

Which leaves me thinking that for perhaps the first time in my life I have come across a French politician I have some admiration for. I think that there is strategy to these revolts in Paris, and that they represent the conviction among the Islamic underground of French society (which must almost certainly be huge) that Sarkozy is the kind of man who could prevent their plans from unfolding, and must be removed. I think they're right: he seems to have the vigour and grit of a man who will stay on top unless treachery brings him down.

I know I often bash France, but I wish them well on this- and, especially, I wish Sarkozy well, and I note that France does too. I know that Britain is far from robust and invulnerable to Islamic pressure. Far, far from it. If France is spineless now and over the ensuing years, I must say I have little confidence that Britain's won't buckle in some terrible way.

Refreshingly Rumsfeld. Not only refreshing, but apparently refreshed: Don Rumsfeld has some classic things to say to Europeans via a Spiegel interview-

''You've got the lead. Well, lead!
SPIEGEL: You mean the Europeans.
Rumsfeld: Sure. My Goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don't have to do everything!
SPIEGEL: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany...
Rumsfeld: ... that's hardly the phrase I would have selected.'

Back into the blog-breach, dear friends, once more,

because there's so much to say about the French conflict; or rather, so many are saying things I can't ignore (please, do take advantage of the links in this post and in the two below). (As ever, Instapundit has proved his invaluability in opening the horizons.)

First, to the Beeb- where I found them doing the serious work of journalism: namely helping faceless old Europe to bash America and kick Bush where it could just please please please God hurt him.

Relatedly, a blog I've always liked has been commenting on BBC double standards and an alarming convergence.

And finally, a retrospective at the French cant which has passed for commentary for so many years, and the European suicidal tendancy to believe that 'the things which happen' in the US (that, is, after they've been magnified and intensified by press bias) could never happen here:

'As the Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1992: "the consensus of French pundits is that something on the scale of the Los Angeles riots could not happen here, mainly because France is a more humane, less racist place with a much stronger commitment to social welfare programs."'

This makes the prescriptions of many for the alienated Islamic youth, to increase social welfare programmes, look just a tad unhelpful.

Deserving of a separate link, Melanie Phillips' post about the violence surfs the web, the press, and the context of it all quite brilliantly.

French Round-Up

Some debate was occasioned at B-BBC by this article from Hugh Schofield. Biased or not, was the question. Francis at the Olive Tree thought it quite good, though demonstrating trademark bias. I think that's close to the mark- what could be more a BBC trademark than saying, for instance, by way of an introduction, that Sarkozy

'normally thrives on the kind of acute law-and-order crisis that the country is currently going through.'

What kind of a ghoul do the BBC think he is? What kind of starting point is it for any sort of impartial and insightful reporting? Answer: no kind, and therefore like so many BBC forays into the real world it's scuppered before launch.

Such things aside, I suppose the analysis that Vilepin and Chirac are manoeuvering to edge Sarkozy into the line of fire is about right- but blindingly obvious to any that has even seen these three men's faces on the TV or internet.

But in any case it could be much more serious than business as usual emanating from the continent's cultural centre. Mark Steyn thinks so. And Helen Samuelzy at the ever informative and stimulating EU Referendum blog, talks a bit about the rottenness that appears to have ignited in the state of Denmark- but only a bit, because the main point is that we're kept in ignorance of it.

This kind of thing illustrates what I mean when I say (as, like a broken record I do say) that the British media, amongst which the BBC is preeminent and draws upon itself maximal responsibility, has utterly failed to carry out its function to inform us about the news that matters to us. That is the great fault which lies in the largely ignorant and visceral coverage of matters American. It's as if the BBC hasn't noticed that Europe is really far more important to us, with regards to social trends and economic and demographic pressures. The US couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't save us from the consequences of our own fatuity. So busy have the British media (amongst which the BBC claims top dog status) always been in saying how important Europe is to us- in order to defend the grande projet of the EU- they have failed to pick up on the fault lines which run through the EU, which threaten us: namely, corruption, massive immigration, demographic decline and spiritual vacuity (to name but four: I could add assimilation of Eastern Europe, reduction of agricultural subsidy and deindustrialisation to the list of Europes's massive problems).

On a wild Blunkett-

Natalie says it all really, but linking to Stephen Pollard was a smart move too. The only thing I'd add is that in reality all Blunkett is guilty of (compared with other ministers in Tony Blair's Government) is getting a little carried away. The modus operandi (please forgive any latin infelicity, I was educated a little late and too cheaply for that stuff) are the same for all Blair's men (and women). What was it Scott was saying? 'Deny, Obfuscate, attack'- and do it together, which may have been Blunkett's biggest error as he'd separated himself from the pack.

People don't talk like this- like this- unless they're at war.

What seems to have passed people by concerning the speech of Amadenajd (whatever), is this comment:


'... They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved… '

I'm betting Prince Charles didn't notice and if he did, he'd think it was a kind of posturing, unrepresentative of the faith he admires.

Sadly he's wrong. The Iranian president was laying out very clearly and, I might say, honestly, the analysis which any genuine muslim must respect if not agree with. prince Charles is heading for America wilfully in ignorance of that reality, hoping(if it crosses his mind) that the Americans won't get an inkling of that reality either. But it is attitudes like that (and if you read the rest, philosophies) which, being held by powerful men with powerful arsenals and terrorist friends, are the reason for the War on Terror. No-one will ever be able to look history in the eye and blame Bush Jnr for the global struggle which Amednejdad is pursuing and facilitating as before him Saddam facilitated it.

It's a tragic resting place of mindless antagonism for failed cultures- but as dangerous as it needs to be to justify all of America's fears and suspicions, and then some.

You have to laugh at this article by A.A. Gill about Englishness. (thx ATW)

It's the way he blends the subtle with the surreal, so that we get juxtapositions like 'The monkey noises at black players, the bellows of abuse at anyone who’s admitted in passing that they read The Guardian; the relentless nailing of ugliness, of weakness, of foreignness'.

You've got to laugh. One wonders just how well he holds in focus the fact that people only do that to Guardian readers to reinforce their ridiculous prejudices about the world, to confirm them in the ever-so-lofty notions of superiority and superior judgement about the world which they so often hold (or, how can they ever read their exactingly stupid doyen Gill from beginning to end without feeling like class snitches?).

I might add that I look English (well, sort of), sound English etc etc... (while being somewhat of a mixture and not even a clearly defined one at that) yet I find that I have no problem with identifying myself as English. Gill has no appreciation that anger and humour are the scylla and charybdis of human emotion. Only the English seem to have grasped this effectively. You might not like the exact synthesis involved, but it seems just about the only practical model out there which, as they say, 'keeps it real' and effective.

Sorry for lack of posts- but this might continue over the weekend as I have a nephew's christening and family engagements, plus many practical things to do.

Anyway, I am minded to compare the relatively trivial (important more for what it says about US conservatism than for its potential to change history) and the historic. In the latter case we see how the 'decadent' liberal West (and its desperate eastern neighbours) could develop a suicidal fifth column dedicated to enriching themselves by collaborating with one of the last century's monsters. In the former case we have a less-than-exciting moderately conservative career woman.

Can you guess which one has the BBC salivating at the moment? Yup, they're missing history, folks- and so, vicariously, do the Brits (and others) who lend them their interest.

Hell hath no fury, or Why's it taken so long? or the last laugh

It would be too poetic, too delicious, to find that George Galloway had been betrayed by the deliberate carelessness of his own wife in failing to cover Georgeous' paper trail to her own bank account in Jordan. It is interesting however to find George bleating 'I am not responsible for my wife'. Good point George. A real crowd pleaser.

But anyway, I hope, it would seem, the game's up for Georgeous this time around, whether the result of his estranged wife's leaving present or not. And really, given the bluster and the repeated links between George and the oil, and the unanswered questions about his relationship with one of Saddam's oil traders, about time too.

Well done to the Beeb for reporting this promptly. However, the fact that they only concentrate on the claims of perjury made in the US, and not on the money trail linking Saddam with George, is disgraceful. As a last huzzah they mention the virtually meaningless libel victory George won against the Telegraph in December. All I can say is that I hope George hasn't spent the money, as he might need to give it back.

Congrats too though to Sen. Coleman, who was a little bit blown away by the Glaswegian's bombast at the Senate Hearing in May. However, I hope (though I'm never sure of anything with regards to Galloway) that we can laugh a little now at Galloway's expense. And he who laughs last tends to be able to decide the terms. Much like George's wife.

(cross-posted at B-BBC)

Was Granddad in Iraq on his own?

Well, the though crossed my mind when I read John Simpson's apologia for Saddam, in which he maintained that the British in Iraq during the 1920's and the reign of Saddam were comparable.

To quote Simpson:

'Saddam Hussein's notion of governing a restless, difficult country like Iraq was that it could only be done with ferocity.

In that he was no different from the presidents and kings before him; no different either from the British, who had the mandate from the League of Nations to run Iraq after 1920, and who used some ferocious tactics to try to protect their rule.'

There are a number of sleights of hand in this article, but I want to concentrate on a matter of fact. Simpson avers of the British that

'They took over, full of the conviction that as the most powerful military nation on earth, with the best political system in human history, the Iraqis would be delighted to be ruled by them.

Within six months the British were negotiating a way out, and after twelve years (imperial powers hate to seem to be cutting and running) they gave up the mandate and left.'

Of course there is the obvious attempt to humorously parallel the US notion of not cutting and running from Iraq, but notice that Simpson said 'they left' (in 1932).

Because I happened to know that the British did not in fact leave in 1932. They gave up the Mandate offered them by the League of Nations then. In fact throughout the 30's they maintained a military presence, and my Grandfather was part of it, being a navigator in the RAF. I have photos of 1930's Mosul that I'm longing to get online and will one day.

So Simpson is simply wrong to say the British left. In fact, as was their wont, they signed a treaty:

'It provided for the establishment of a "close alliance" between Britain and Iraq with "full and frank consultation between them in all matters of foreign policy which may affect their common interests." Iraq would maintain internal order and defend itself against foreign aggression, supported by Britain. Any dispute between Iraq and a third state involving the risk of war was to be discussed with Britain in the hope of a settlement in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations. In the event of an imminent threat of war, the two parties would take a common defense position. Iraq recognized that the maintenance and protection of essential British communications was in the interest of both parties. Air-base sites for British troops were therefore granted near Basra and west of the Euphrates (where my Grandfather was), but these forces "shall not constitute in any manner an occupation, and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of Iraq." This treaty, valid for 25 years, was to come into effect after Iraq joined the League of Nations. On Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations as an independent state.'

As for the British being as bad as Saddam, I don't see the Iraqi government offering Saddam's henchmen any airbases just now, do you?

(nb. The following post was originally destined for B-BBC. For some reason it failed to post. Then I thought it might have been too long anyway for the B-BBC blog, and it reiterated anyway feelings I had made clear there in posts like this one. Rather than waste the efforts I'd spent though, I thought I'd paste it here.)


The BBC's appalling anti-Americanism

No, I am not about to give some startling example of BBC ignorance or callous misrepresentation of the US- holding as I do no brief whatsoever for going into bat for the US of A- as though we need it spelled out in lurid language just how anti-American the BBC is.

But, I just can't get over the BBC's coverage of the Pakistan earthquake, and how they have neglected quite wilfully to report the US' response to it.

I noticed today the BBC reporting that one of three British chinook helicopters destined for Pakistan had left the UK, on board a transport plane. I'd have thought there might have been a case for saying this is a little bit late in the day and that the BBC might have been justified in saying it- but that, I think, would be to misconceive the BBC's political role. Its considerations include not offending one of its paymasters, the Foreign Office. They also include winning the favour of millions of totally biased muslims and others by acting as a sceptical (not to say completely jaundiced) eye on the US. In this case it was a blind eye.

Because just look at what the US has been doing. The US has devoted no fewer than 17 helicopters, with 20 more en route to the region. Furthermore,

'Television news broadcasts have been filled in recent days with images of U.S. Navy cargo ships offloading relief supplies in Karachi, olive-drab Chinook helicopters disgorging bundles of tents and blankets in isolated mountain villages, and American soldiers -- some diverted from military operations in Afghanistan -- working with their Pakistani counterparts to evacuate the injured.'

nb.- those would be domestic Pakistani news broadcasts. I'm not sure what other channels have reported, but I think the BBC (at least through its website) has been bending over backwards to avoid it (even in its overview of the disaster- where we hear from the oh-so-important Mr Egeland of the United Nations and of the role of Pakistani military helicopters. Please feel free to join me in an in depth search of the BBC site to see if the US efforts have warranted a serious mention; and of course report any good- which is to say, corrective- TV or radio broadcasting. I don't think we need to bother ourselves with the highminded idea that the BBC is concerned just to report the needs and the human stories out in the Kashmir instead of naming political names. After all not only did the egregious Egeland get a starring role- who is this unelected turnip anyway?- the UN got its own article, where we heard about the poor old thing's 'worst nightmare'.)

Why is this important?

Well, with the BBC regularly playing up the world's (and especially muslim) hostility to the global superpower, now comes a time when the US has a chance of refuting its unfairest critics and the BBC sits on its hands and bleats about the UN while other media can report testimonies like this:

'Obviously, this is the other side of the United States," said Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Shujabadi, a prominent religious scholar in the port city of Karachi. "For the first time in so many years I have seen the American planes dropping relief and not bombs on the Muslim population."

In fairness to Mr Shujabadi its possible he could have sought out the the BBC for his international news during the tsunami last year, which might help explain his ignorance of US aid efforts to muslims. Of course as the WaPo says 'It is too early to say whether the aid operation will have any lasting effect on public attitudes'(in Pakistan), but that doesn't mean we can ignore a global media empire which shows its ill-will by studiously ignoring concrete and positive images of the US when at their most newsworthy. The BBC, having been heavily criticised for allowing political considerations to dominate its handling of the Kelly affair in 2003 (and this was a unique application of the magnifying glass to BBC business as it usually unfolds), is still playing politics. It doesn't understand its responsibilities.

As Laban Tall's post at B-BBC indicates, muslim attitudes to us infidels can cost lives. Is it too much to ask the BBC to forget the political agendarising, to ignore their hatred of George Bush and to damn well do the job they're paid to do by reporting the major events and contributions, by telling us what is happening when it is happening rather than playing for their Islamic viewing figures and the approval of FO mandarins (or any other of their priority audiences)?

Just some great reading.

Mark Steyn has another insightful article in the Spectator, which rounds up my current interest in Russia and the Islamic threat there by addressing the timebomb that is Russian decline. Talking it over with someone, they argued that Russia was 'different', and one couldn't judge it the same way as other countries. Plus, he didn't trust demographic studies. 'Russian exceptionalism, eh?' I responded. 'I thought that wasn't allowed'. I also said that if there was an exceptional country in the region, it would be China, not Russia.

Anyhow, analysing another country which thinks itself different- France- David Pryce-Jones really caught my attention this time with his devastating history of Franco-Islamic closeness. I know he always does a great job, but this time I read a great chunk of it, and it was, well, great- so I'm sharing what was shared with me.

I'm a Foxie, probably always would have been had it not been for his percieved no-hoper status in the race to reach the position of top-Tory; but Melanie Phillips really made me smile. Said it all really:

'he has never quite shaken off the impression that he remains a junior doctor in rag week'

Update: (and this gives me an opportunity to say that blogger, according to its deep mysteries, is posting my posts quite some hours after they are written, making some of them out of date when they are posted. Aaagrh!)

Doctor Fox has sadly been hounded out of the race. This is a disappointment for me, but not really a surprise. Davis lost votes to Fox, clearly, and probably lost more (especially among the unalligned) to Cameron. Will all the Fox votes go to Davis, and will Davis maintain his current base? Difficult to say. I think it could be tight but from the fact that people have little tangible against Cameron I expect that it won't be and that Cameron will canter home. Fox vs Cameron, as Mel says, would have been a different matter and one which I was hoping to see.

Then again, I would say that Little Lord Fauntleroy won't be as liberal as some people think. He's a public schoolboy- a little reminiscent of my brother-in-law, actually- and they can be good at appearing all soft when thy actually have a good deal of toughness within.

I commented recently on the BBC's avoidance of calling an Islamist an Islamist in Chechnya.

The reason seems to be the oft-observed piety that Islam had nothing to do with the Chechen conflict until recent years, and that (natch) this outgrowth is the consequence of the hard line taken by the Kremlin.

Oh well, yes, (or maybe NO!) but... is it really necessary to go to this extent:

'In his statement on the Kavkaz Center website, which was couched in Islamic terms, Shamil Basayev said that 217 "mujahideen" had attacked Nalchik, targeting police stations and military installations as well as the airport.'

Er, duh! When is a mujahideen not a mujahideen?

No, it's not when he's a mujahasbeen! It's when he's a "mujahideen".

What? Is there some special Islamist NVQ (National Vocation Qualification, in UKtopian terms) they should have to have the scare-quotes withdrawn? Or would we need it from the horse's mouth rather than his commander's, that he was indeed a fully paid up and equivalent to our worst Power of Nightmares fantasy a MU-JA-HI-DEEN.

And do we assume that the term 'infidel' (see later in the article) was reserved only for the media statement rather than forming part of the movement's terminology?

But most silly of all is the 'couched in Islamic terms' thing. How couched, I wonder? Just seated primly or totally sunk in? The point is, since the man responsible for Beslan is back in the news with the Nalchik raid, who can have any compunction in using the term Islamist save the most reality-cringing and distorting kind of journalist- found, it would seem, in limitless, overwhelming supply at the BBC.

The Washington Times managed to be direct and accurate, and with the Beslan massacre behind us, and the Chechens' own websites proclaiming their Islamism, why can't/won't the Beeb now bow to reality? What holds them back? The only satisfactory response would be a detailed analysis showing how the Chechens' websites and contents were fakes, or unrepresentative of the rebel forces- in fact in all likelihood propaganda spread by Russia to get the West to help them out. I look forward to hearing that argument from someone.

ah, but did she have in mind me? Or you?

The quest for Karadzic: a true sense of comedy from the Beeb.

Naturally I'd like him caught- though not to spare the EU's blushes (if, that is, the EU ever blush about anything)- but the somehow pertinent observation of the BBC that the fugitive's poems 'describe mountains, thick green forests, rivers and wild animals.' , as though he were dropping some kind of locational clue here, is quite funny indeed.

Not exactly quiet on the Eastern Front

The War on Terror reminds me of the Cold War: the same sense of a hidden enemy, or at least an enemy whose schemes were difficult to fathom and geopolitically wideranging. Every time you heard about some conflict in a strange part of the world it gradually emerged that the commies had something to do with it. The tragedy for me is that the WoT is in some ways a continuation- different name (Islam), same relentless ideology pushing millions down hopeless paths of antagonism to countries that mean them no harm.

There are other points of similarity too. Just as in times past the various Soviet- inspired rebellions and coups were always styled some kind of popular revolt, so today no-one wants to call a spade a spade. Mark Steyn has an article on this very 'unnaming' menace. I think he should have added the BBC to his list rather than going after the better-than-average Scotsman.

While the bombs and bullets were just about subsiding in Nalchik, the BBC were busy trying to show 'the other side' of Islam in Russia.

The problem is that it's not news- it's anti-news-, as if the story of a white man minding his own business in East Anglia were a necessary antidote to a racist attack.

By contrast with the BBC's upfront reporting of Islam's moderate (and distinctly quiet) Russian muslim mainstream (and note how the main dynamic, that of radical Islamic agitation from the geographical fringe against the centralised Russian system is sidestepped here), their coverage of the Nalchik violence is determined to place Islam somewhere down the line in the roll call of rootcauses:

'Citizens of the Russian region of Kabardino-Balkaria have held a day of mourning in memory of the 36 killed in an attack by Chechen-backed militants.
Flags on government buildings were flown at half-mast, as police checked vehicles and the area returned to calm.

Twelve civilians and 24 members of the security forces died in the violence in Nalchik, with 91 attackers reported to have been killed and some 36 captured.

The rebels are thought to be a mix of local Islamic militants and extremists.

Their aim was to demand independence for Chechnya.'

I like the way they are described as 'a mix of local Islamic militants and extremists' . That way, we know they are local, not international, Islamists, and that the extremists appear to be something different ie. not Islamists (it is clear in context we are being invited to see a strand of nationalist extremism at work here).

In the end the BBC do allow some notion of Islamic extremism to enter, but they tether the loathsome beast firmly to the solid trunk of 'rootcauses':

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says a combination of poverty and iron rule have created a fertile soil for Islamic extremism in the region, exacerbated by an unemployment rate of up to 90%.

Going back to my starting point, isn't that exactly the sort of thing we heard during Cold War coups: mustn't blame the people, they're poor and oppressed.

Newsweek is significantly more effective than the Beeb in pointing out the salient news trends.

The problem is that denial means that we are unprepared for the next big shock. Much as I am enthusiastic about progress in Iraq, and rejoice in the exercise of freedom, it seems that the media is failing to give us the global perspective we require. It's interesting, for instance, that the EU and Blair have been sucking up to Putin, and giving him what he wants, but one wonders if that's missing the point with Russia in the parlous state it's in now, or likely to be in soon.

The BBC has a future?

Here's the text of the BBC's chums' notion of market research. I think it's nonsense, since the question of what to pay for and how to value the BBC is being asked within a completely skewed context- where we have a monolithic organisation bound up with the history of Britain going right back, and a market that's been shaped by their existence from its beginning. However, I have several good acquaintances who know high level market research in theory and in practise- and I plan to glean some observations from them.

Stop the press: Mark Steyn likes a film. As an addicted reader of Steyn, and especially of his film reviews- where his aim is surefire and precise- I have to restrain myself from linking him; but now I feel it could be a public service announcement to say this: Serenity appears to be good.

I might be tempted to say we should all go Dutch- and ban the burqa, but then again what if going Dutch means talking to Al Qaeda? (hat tip ATW)

A Nobel Assault?

I doubt I am the only one unsurprised at Harold Pinter's success in winning the Nobel Prize for Literature- but it's strange.

Until a couple of years ago I'd all but forgotten Pinter- he was one of those irrelevant and inferior representatives of modern patriotic/socialist British literature (think Hughes, Bennett, Loach etc.) I'd had foisted on me at school and university and had just about managed to vomit out of my memory. Then came the Iraq war and suddenly Pinter was hip and relevant. He produced some 'ravishing' poetry which can be read here.

What I couldn't believe was how the BBC managed to mention the prize he's won without pointing out that Pinter and Al Baradei (the peace prize winner) shared the same anti-Iraq war viewpoint. They mention that Pinter is controversial and was a fierce critic of Reagan and Thatcher, but they don't mention his most obvious claim to recent fame- which, it appears, is generally the main consideration for the publicity conscious Nobellers. To me it's almost indisputable that Pinter would have failed to win the Nobel Prize were it not for his anti-Iraq war stance (not that I give a monkey's about the Nobel Prize, but people do).

An aside- I find it particularly obnoxious that the nobel panel chose to say (and were quoted by the Beeb saying) that Pinter '"uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms".'

This is absolutely what he has not done. He has been the metaphorical aider and abettor of the literal oppressor in the literal closed room, with a literal victim- in Iraq.

Update!!!- major stealth edit alert!!! Now they tell us 'The playwright is known for speaking out on issues like the war on Iraq'. And then they eulogise. (+ I edited my own post- I meant to say unsurprised earlier.)

Also noteworthy, also from an EU-watching blog- this post about the remarkable steps being taken, and contested by the French, to massively reduce agricultural subsidies.

Random piece of British poltics: here is an insight I really hope is correct (nice site, too).

I couldn't help being slightly amused at the thought of a Cameron / Clarke ticket (though definitely more a nightmare than a dream ticket for me), because I used to know someone whose surname was Cameron-Clarke. It must be one thing to share the name of a party leader, another to find oneself bearing the names of both of them.

Miers: the debate. I'm posting this before I've read it, but it should be more than interesting when I get the time.

I would just add that for those who wonder why Miers is important- if you've ever wondered if Bush has judgement or just gets lucky sometimes, you'll have an interest in this. In that sense it's a potentially defining dilemma, however trivial it may seem (it's not trivial, when you consider some of the society-forming decisions which the US Supreme Court is entrusted with).

Interesting Flap in the States

I continue to be fascinated by the Harriet Miers case. 'Harriet who?' I hear you say. Well, quite- that's what all the problems are about.

Although I talked about the Miers nomination previously, the scale of the controversy, at least as it appears in the US conservative part of the blogosphere, demands some kind of introduction. Maybe Richard North's analysis of another UK conservative's green eyed observations about the US' conservative 'establishment' (kind of an alternative and not yet reigning version of the deeply entrenched US Liberal establishment) will do.

And now, according to conservative luminaries like David Frum, all the conservative success is jeopardised by a President who, when he has a free hand, chooses his chum for a crucial life-long legal position. Thus Bush (it would seem) betrays those who have supported him through situations where they disagreed with him on the grounds that a) they hated his opponents on the left, and b) they were hoping that when the flak calmed down he'd reward their loyalty by offering plums like a place on the Supreme Court to someone who they could see as a representative of their own political idealism.

But, as a conservative, albeit of a British sort, I have a different point of view. I believe conservatism naturally rebels against any kind of social establishment of the kind that many conservatives in the US would like to construct. It despises the way that many would like to place themselves in some pantheon of 'greatest conservatives', thereby feeling snubbed when a significant position is filled in government by one from beyond the pantheon. My kind of conservatism believes that small is beautiful and that a closely argued thought process is better than a thousand endorsements from unconnected eminences. My kind of conservatism doesn't believe in massive tides of revolutionaries, but slow accretions of good judgement- which others value and imitate. My kind of conservatism believes in minimalism- that you can't know everything or hold a schema perfectly, but you can perfectly well know the little that is given to you and can extrapolate that knowledge to great affairs.

Thus I support the nomination of Harriet Miers and recommend you read what a crusty and longwinded lawyer has to say about the matter.

Don't know why the post I just posted hasn't been posted.

However, what is remarkable is that the BBC's Don't Have Your Say may be becoming Have Your Say (after all). More credit to the Biased BBC blog I'd say.

Coo, isn't he lovely?

That's right, transnationalism has once more given birth- and it's the delightful progeny of the 'international community' (maiden name, UN), and the guilt ridden corpse of masculinity entombed in the Nobel peace prize. They're calling the fresh arrival Mohammed, apparently.

I watched a little bit of Sky and a little bit of the Beeb, and while Aunty Beeb was wreathed in smiles at the way the little chap had emerged from his Iraqi weapons crisis, Uncle Sky was grimacing wryly and saying good humouredly, 'bit ugly, isn't he?' Got to say I absolutely preferred the company of Uncle Sky.

Paul Reynolds, the godfather, was all serious when it came to a formal address. He seemed to think that Mohammed's arrival was a sign that he was a mighty achiever, rather than simply reflecting the fact that Alfie had got cosy amidst the warm embrace of the UN and it's anti-US obstructionism.

This gives an idea what the Nobels think about Iraq.

Cameron's mish-mash

I 've read David Cameron's much-heralded speech- and it doesn't amount to much. I notice how he avoids all the difficult issues, such as Europe, Ireland and Iraq, and goes for all the simple ones, like offering 'choice' and 'setting' and so on, in education (things which Tony Blair can claim for himself, and which the public believes are already happening).

But I found the emptiness summarised by a comment he makes about foreign policy:

'And when we talk about foreign affairs, we don't just stand up for Gibraltar and Zimbabwe, but for the people of Darfur and sub-Saharan Africa who are living on less than a dollar a day and getting poorer while we are getting richer.'

Another difficult and vital issue (aside from the War on Terror- and national security, and the London bombings-, which he doesn't mention) is the UN's role in our diplomatic life. Blair, just today, condemned Iran's violent toying with Soutern Iraq by referring to his 'UN mandate'. Politics it may be (though I think Blair does have a high regard for the UN), but it comes with a price- and the price is inertia ove issues of national interest.

Cameron's statement about Zimbabwe shows that he doesn't recognise historical responsibility or national interest and give it any priority over the UN's shapeless moralising. I don't believe that the Conservatives as a party have really stood up for Zimbabwe as Mugabe tightens his rigor mortis-like grip. The idea of watering down still further is amost unthinkable.

What we need is a leader who has some sense of the difficult issues, and can stand up for conservative policies in them. It's by adopting the right principled positions based on our national interest that would differentiate Conservatives from Labour, and give some substance to his idea of renewal. I found Claudia Rosett's analysis of a dynamic national spirit versus a moribund transnational one interesting- no country could be more clearly politically defined than her subject, Taiwan.

Almost right about Blair- Danny Finkelstein getting closer than most.

+

A solid comment on David Davis . One has to conclude there is no apparent serious candidate for leader. If pushed I would lean towards Fox, rather than stumble towards one of the others.

A little more on the subjects I talked about in the post below- the Miers and Delay situations, which I, perhaps somewhat impetuously (but I think constructively), tied in together.

The Delay 'second indictment' which the press greedily gobbled up, is nicely explained here.

The Miers situation, which I felt had some symbolic connection with the Delay one, is being vigorously pursued by Hugh Hewitt in posts like this and this.

I think that choosing Miers is another sign that Bush has a philosophy something like the following: He doesn't trust establishments. He does trust providence- providence which has brought him into contact with a wide, but not exhaustive, range of the interesting and talented. It doesn't matter if you agree with the idea of providence or not- it's the only summary word we have to express the specific journey a person takes which differentiates them from others (nb- you could make a case for 'fate', but the Greek tragic associations don't really work too well). What this means is that he makes his choices based at least partly on his own personal journey through life. He believes in making selections in a team context, and in the wider one of society and the world.

I don't know what to think of Harriet Miers- and I do care, since in many ways we need the USA to be strong for the safety of civilisation- largely because I don't know her. But I like Bush's balanced approach- rarely picking the biggest name, and never taking the genuinely easy option. I like the way he seems to have the attitude that you've got to displease all of the people some of the time. I've never really been pleased by GWB, and never felt betrayed by him- but I find him very reassuring.

The dumb and the less so

No, this is not a plug for honest Jon. Well, not really.

Actually it is to make a point about US politics at the moment.

I notice that the media have managed to avoid mentioning the idiocy of the Texan legal eagles who indicted Rep Congressman Tom Delay on charges which relied on legislation which postdated his alleged offence. Instead the Beeb and others race straight ahead to the 'new indictment'. If that had been US legal authorities versus the Islamofascist I doubt the utter stupidity of the first indictment would have been missed so glaringly.

In the light of this conspiracy of dumb, is it really so stupid of Bush to choose a new member of the Supreme Court from outside the loop- but of course part of Bush's, someone whose abilities he has seen close at hand? Unless you just distrust and hate Bush per se, that is. Furthermore, if Ms Miers had been educated in the real Texan jurisprudence of dumb, it is doubtful if she could ever have headed a successful law firm. I suppose I have the right to be suspicious of people like the aforelinked Sullivan who buy into the idea that the second Delay indictment is actually an additional one, and not a replacement for the abortive initial one (designed of course, for the very media misrepresentation which is ongoing).

I got into this issue via the slightly personal exchanges of sorts between Sullivan (the aforelinked) and Hugh Hewitt, whom Sullivan accuses of basically being a fawning sycophant of the President. I have to say that Sullivan is an idiot. He seems uncontent while anyone else is on the other side of a debate. He whines like a child in personal and emotive language, being totally prone to psycholanalysis of the president. You could almost guess he'd just come from the shrink's couch to his computer. Meanwhile, if Hewitt is guilty of anything, it's of praising his own profession too much, thereby making it look like Bush's choice within that profession was really straighforward, when in the current global situation (which is what America and its legal framework will have to face up to) it was anything but.

When you look into the likes of Sullivan, the dumbness of the media generally, and the dumbness of much of the oft-praised legal eagles- and the way that they'd all like to huddle together in one self-righteous lump screaming at big bad Bush- you have to say that Bush may at least be slightly less dumb than his opponents, and thus well placed to make history happen the way he'd prefer.

Blood and Iron

I think the Bali bombings should have taught us some useful things- things we shouldn't need to be taught, but that we're learning with painful slowness.

One important thing is that Islamists repeat their targets. That means they are not engaged in some geographical lottery of explosive protest, with the names in the hat being those who have offended Islam, but a sustained assault. It might be comforting to think that the safest place to be would be somewhere which has already been targeted, but that's clearly false logic.

Mark Steyn has a great article about the Bali bombings, aimed at the Australian public. It's more and more important for us to think globally (and act locally) to counteract what the Islamists are developing.

We can see the Bali situation as a microcosm of the Islamist strategy and the potential it has. Steyn paints the picture a little:

'When the suicide bombers self-detonated on Saturday, the travel section of Britain's The Sunday Telegraph had already gone to press, its lead story a feature on how Bali's economy had bounced back from the carnage of 2002. We all want to believe that: one terrorist attack is like a tsunami or hurricane, just one of those things, blows in out of the blue, then the familiar contours of the landscape return. But two attacks are a permanent feature, the way things are and will be for some years, as one by one the bars and hotels and clubs and restaurants shut up shop. Many of the Australians injured this weekend had waited to return to Bali, just to make sure it was "safe". But it isn't, and it won't be for a long time, and by the time it is it won't be the Bali that Westerners flocked to before 2002.'

I highlight what is surely the significance of Bali- it won't be the same again. It's been changed, and by Islamofascists. That's their victory, their template, and their credential for the place at the head of history which they seek.

Sometimes people list the achievements of the US in its War on Terror. Sometimes even the sceptics, like the BBC, do that. They main reasons are either to say, 'well, it's working', or 'it's worked'. Many who do that are either getting cold feet or trying to egg on those whose feet are cooling.

The reality is that for all the talk of neo-colonialism no-one has the appetite for that anymore. The only would-be colonists out there are Islamofascists. They'd love to colonise the whole world. They know the dynamics include blood and oil, and a commerce in ideas. So, like every good international sales manager, they have a big, big map of the world imprinted on their minds. They have outposts and representatives worldwide- some violent, some not- aping, a little, the way the British Empire began with Raleighs as well as Drakes. I'm not saying Islamofascism has anything so positive to offer, but it has the dynamism of a nascent Empire. It's that grand vision which we have to confront, and most would like to pretend it doesn't exist in any significant form.

Some great stuff on the web.

Had some peace and quiet, and no eye strain- and no major deadline; and the result was I spent a while actually surfing the web and reading some stuff (following up some stories), and checking my links- and it was great.

This post, therefore, could go in a variety of directions, but as I'm just calming down from being greatly tickled by something Barry Beelzebub said, I'll link there first. B.B. is going to be one of the biggest British blogreads, if he sticks around and doesn't greatly prefer venting through his local newspaper columns. He just has a satirist's gift for pith. Thus, talking about the girls who claim they've been assaulted while drunk, he says:

'What these girls are really reporting is not assault but regret.'

And aint that the truth?

Staying with British blogging, I found that this rang true for me, and reflects a considerable malaise in British society. Paul Marks talks about a conversation overheard on a train (trains, in my view, are not so much ways of getting from A to B as they are cultural and civilised leisure facilities- which of course is why they are endangered- acknowledging of course that there are those who rely on them in daily life, with catastrophic effects for their household budgets and blood pressures). The conversation was between two academics from Nottingham University and basically what emerged was what frauds today's academics in the UK are: idle, lacking intellectual curiosity, even dishonest. I say 'in the UK' but actually I think it's a little more universal than that. I've always found myself very comfortable with the atmosphere in any university where I've spent time (including several outside the UK)- and that's how I know they're morally wrong. No place that makes me feel so comfortable can be a real benefit to society (er,- updating hastily-, not that I find myself at home in dishonest company, but intellectual dishonesty is generally quite pleasant for those on the inside; or those temporarily accepted by it).

Another reason for surfing the web is that there's so much going on which, for good or ill, is important.

I came across some fascinating stuff surrounding the Conservative leadership campaign via the EURef blog- stuff with which I actually agree. According to the Daily Telegraph, that makes me a 'right-winger'. Yay- at last I know for sure. The interesting essays from 'Right-wingers' include some I'd almost be happy to sign a petition for- but I suspect I'd want to tease out the details. That's why it's troubling that the Conservatives are so weak just now- there's not room for that debate when things are in the broadbrush phase (still).

Finally (I think), but most important, thanks to A Tangled Web I noticed what John Dugard- special 'rapporteur' from the UN to the so-called occupied territories- said about a single (Palestinian) state solution to the conflicts there. It only backs up other things he's said.

Something else I noticed also interested me though (something I picked up at the Jerusalem Post)- that was Kim Howells' response to Israel's recent actions in retaliation to shelling from Gaza. It's quite different to Dugard's tack. Howells says:

'"I thought the retaliation this week was proportionate," said Howells about the IDF operations. "The [Palestinian] attack was a very serious one, it could have killed a lot of people. It's a miracle really there weren't more casualties."

"I think there is no excuse now," he added. "Gaza is now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, and there are no Israeli troops there. One hopes that where tough decisions have to be made, Abu Mazen [PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and the PA will make them." '

He also followed it up, forcefully:

'"We are waiting with bated breath for a response from the PA," said Howells, "and it has to be a signal that it is capable of good governance. This is not a bottomless pit that this money is coming from."

Howells dismissed PA claims that it doesn't have the wherewithal to effectively take on Hamas and the other terrorist organizations. "Look, they have 60,000 troops in the PA, they have all the equipment they need. What they need is the political will to do it," he said. '

And he topped it off by the following:

'Regarding moves he expected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to take immediately to move the diplomatic process forward, Howells said, "I'm not looking for Sharon to do anything other than – if Israel is attacked in the way it was attacked this week – to act in the measured way I spoke of. '

Well, it could be better, but it's been worse- see how the late Robin Cook faced a similar situation. The divide between the Dugard approach and the British Government's one is heartening; one can only hope it widens and that the former is seen for what it is: anti-Jewish, hopelessly biased, and symptomatic of the UN's condition.

Supporting Israel is made more and more essential by every fresh terrorist attack by Islamists- such as the one that's happened just today in Bali.

Time for 'Institutional Repentance'?

The deep parody of a church that the C of E has become is quite stark this week.

The backdrop was already provided by the way their senior British numpties had decided they ought to issue a report prepared to broach the idea of apologising for the Iraq war. It was reported that:

'While criticizing Western democracy as "deeply flawed," the bishops appeal for greater "understanding" of what motivates terrorists, and say efforts must be made to address their "long-standing grievances'

For me it doesn't matter that, as some pointed out, their eminences weren't gung-ho against the war; the point is that with IslamoNazis you can't afford to give their propagandist nostrils a sniff.

That's even what their own man in Iraq, Canon White, thought:

'"They've got to take seriously the Anglican churches in these [Muslim] nations," the Church of England Newspaper quoted Canon Andrew White as saying in its weekly edition published on Friday.

"The situation is dangerous on the ground and what is said in the U.K. has a profound effect," he added.'

But did their eminences bother to consult with their man on the ground before they pronounced from comfortable blighty? I doubt it. They thought it was enough to turn down an interview with Al Jazeera.

Canon White was primarily concerned about St. George's church, Baghdad's only Anglican church, which had been shut by Saddam and only reopened in 2003- in other words, because of the war their eminences wanted to apologise for.

Today I came, by chance, across a report which said that the lay leadership of St George's Church in Baghdad is missing, believed murdered by criminals on the Ramadi-Fallujah road. Canon White thought the murderers were likely to have been simple criminals. Who knows? What I do know is that it must have been a lonely road they were on, when the Anglican hierarchy itself was passing by on the other media side.

Nevertheless at least the C o E newspaper was on the ball, taking a completely solid line for once on something with its headline story:

'MUSLIM consultants are queuing up to offer their services free of charge to help Anglican clergy following the London bombings. In what can only be seen as pure acts of altruism, a spate of Muslim doctors have been volunteering their expertise to patients since July 7, at St Luke’s Hospital for Clergy in London, after it was put on alert to help victims of 7/7.'

Nice to see they know how to pay tribute to the poor and downtrodden still.

(highlighting mine- and btw, quite how this muslim activity helps is difficult to fathom; and quite why the hospital is so busy with Anglican clergy is also obscure, being as it is nearly three months since the attack. Spiritual mysteries that are beyond me, no doubt).

I hope to be more active blogging soon. The deadline I mentioned has been extended, though I think I kept my end up reasonably, so to speak. Anyhow I have noticed a few things:

Peace has broken out in Northern Ireland- not

I have to comment about this, as few Brits from the mainland probably will. I think that it's despicable to give the people of Northern Ireland up to a bunch of long in the tooth gangsters like the IRA/Sinn Fein. I worry that, admirable though he is (and I've known people who know him), Ian Paisley may not be quite strong enough to see off the men of near violence for the adequate future- he's getting a bit frail. And, save Ian Donaldson, there's no successor (and I don't trust Donaldson all that much, either). People always mocked Paisley's 'Ulster says NO' line, but what's at stake in Nothern Ireland is the democratic integrity of the British Isles, long term. In the short term, there are victims past, present and future to worry about (and when I say victims, I think we need to mention the Mcartney case, and ask ourselves whether the IRA mentality should have any place in any Government anywhere).

David Vance summarises very well a line of resistance (I highlight what I think are the highlights):

As a pro-republican propaganda blitzkrieg is launched this week, and assiduously sold by our own Government, thinking unionists should stand firm and ask three simple questions to all those appeasers and peace processors now praising the IRA. 1. Has the IRA disbanded? 2. Has the IRA desisted from its multi-million annual criminal racketeering? 3. Has Sinn Fein accepted that the IRA was a gang of murdering thugs?

The political gales that will buffet unionists in coming days will be of Hurricane Katrina-scale proportions, but I trust that our political representatives will recall that "the thing that will destroy us is politics without principle". This is the time to stick to our principles, insisting that terrorist proxies can never be permitted into Government. If we allow that then we decommission democracy.

Meanwhile, I notice the BBC reporting Hain, who could really be Mo Mowlam's little brother when it comes to flippancy and leftist idealism:

'"I wouldn't have expected Ian or the unionists to just bowl over and welcome everything with open arms because they've got a lot of cause to be sceptical and suspicious over the behaviour of the IRA in the past," he told BBC News on Tuesday.

"The IRA have often promised to do things and then reneged on them."

Earlier, before editing, Hain was also quoted saying that no reasonable person could doubt the decomissioning process- which shows you exactly what Hain thinks about the DUP. But what no-one on this side of the water seems to think about, least of all, Hain, is just what it must be like to consider actually having to look up to Gerry Adams as a political authority. Or to have Martin McGuinness in charge of your kids' schooling. I wonder what his line on bullying is? That's really what's at stake in Ireland, but with every act of a nation a kind of mentality is cemented- so there's bigger, British dimension too- unsurprisingly, since you can't duck out from history. If we cave in to the political aspirations of the IRA, I see no discouragement whatsoever in temporary setbacks for Islamic terrorists- and while the Catholics in Ireland have to face the fact that demographics do not favour a Republican, Catholic North, greying-beard Osama (not actually so very old himself), knows how many opportunities are springing up out of his Faith's fertility.

As I notice yet more worrying (and pathetic) Euro weakness (of course I meant EU 'diplomacy' over Iran, not the slightly dodgy currency) I feel I have to mention too that I may be gone for the next few days. I have a piece of work to do for which the deadline was today, but hopefully Monday will do. Of course I'll just mention how blogging takes up a lot of time and I'm sure to be understood...

In other BBC news, this African news doesn't surprise me. Nor does the BBC's slightly unhealthy interest in this. Somehow all three seem to be of a piece, as often happens when the world out there is filtered through the BBC.

Like him or loathe him, I think it ought to be clear by now that GWB has a scheming brain. Thomas Lifson analyses the details of it (with especial reference to this hurricane season they're experiencing in the South). He concludes that Bush 'knows and understands strategy in a way no other president ever has.' Make of that what you will.

Well, there has been a failure in the UK miliary activities in Iraq- they should have taken on Al Sadr, arrested him and tried him for some of his many misdemeanours. Then they should have said to all the waverers around Mucktada, 'who's next?', and then (to the people) 'we want to involve ourselves in most of what goes on here in Basra, getting to know you and what's best for us to do before we go'. They should have done this a long time ago.

The BBC's Paul Reynolds is still bleating about an exit strategy. Yeah, well, ok- but in doing this almost solid for over a year- almost two years I think- he seems to have missed the point that the troops were there for real reasons, and had serious work to do. Perhaps the defensiveness of the whole UK endeavour, which the BBC has done more than most to promote, has contributed to the failure to exit?

The point is that the Brits had it relatively easy there, but naturally where you have hot-blooded Shia and the mullahs next door you have to move smartly to build on that position, rather than preening about being liked more than your colleagues further north. I don't really blame our troops for this as it's mainly media driven, but nevertheless there is a snobbery about, which I don't like, which may just have got our troops singed recently. I also don't think the situation in the South is desperate, unless one considers that this area was a real potential strength and dynamo to achieve our objectives, and now it isn't so clear that it is.

The Poosh is very clear about this, as on much else. Good stuff. If I understand correctly he's from an Asian background, which is why he sounds so refreshingly patriotic I suppose.

Back of an envelope stuff-

Yes, really- I'm turning it round and round in my hand to read my scrawl, and I'm just glad to have it and my keyboard so close together for once.

BBC World often requires enveloping; I don't want to be mean and have a notepad and pen right at hand, or maybe I just know that pens and paper were made for me to separate them at crucial moments.

After noting down (with a pared down biro squirming in my clenched fist) that Brian Hanrahan was talking about the subsidisation of oil when he meant a reduction in duty, I went on to chronicle a discussion between two eminences from the US and UK (I know them, but their names I failed to note and can't remember) about aid and the UN, hosted by Zanab Abadawi.

First she asked whether the failure of the UN's jamboree to produce reform was a result of John Bolton's 'coming late'. The she said 'the US has made the world resent it; that is the crux of the matter'. When the US former ambassador to the UN (I think that was his role) tried to mention the question of African corruption Ms Abadawi intervened quickly :

'We're not going to talk about corruption in Africa, because I'm sure we all agree we want that sorted out...'

It was then I started scrawling in earnest. I thought, how ridiculous that she thought this point needed no discussion. Until corruption in Africa is controlled and ended, there will be no solution to Africa's problems, and aid is like a sticking plaster on a blown out tyre. Moreover, any approach or mechanism to end corruption will not be simple, hardly a matter of consensus, and deeply controversial there's no doubt.

Then back came the ex-ambassador, talking about how the money was going to be spent (ie, was it all going to be wasted through corruption), and Ms Abadawi was again swift off the mark, 'ok, you've made that point'. Er, no. It was ruled out of court, remember?

All she wanted to talk about was the Millenium Goals and why the US and Mr Bolton were so laggardly. I would write more about this, but my envelope was rather limited in size and my scrawl was rather big. The companion sheet to my envelope remains elusive.

Those wannabe intellectuals.

Is there anyone in the hierarchy of the C of E today who wouldn't rather have been an intellectual if they had had the vigour, discipline or intellect to do so?

I only say because they're forever intellectualising and poking their noses in where they haven't a clue, let alone aren't wanted. They have much to say at the moment about the threat of terrorism and the 'just war tradition' (today's C of E loves tradition as much as the Pope, maybe more) and how the church should apologise to Islam for the war in Iraq.

I'll quote a little and then ventilate:

'By way of conclusion we offer a set of fundamental Christian principles, both theological and ethical, which we believe should guide our thinking and action, not only in relation to policy toward Iraq and Iran, but more generally to the present international order'.

Why thank you very much learned gentlepersons of the cloth. I think you'll find that you can't offer a 'fundamental set of Christian principles' other than the ones you completely ignore which were handed to you for transmission to the society around you, ie. Biblical doctrines. I don't care about your 'principles'; I don't trust your interpretations, which remain as ever grounded in the techno-speak of transnationalism rather than in the plain text which is your only claim to exceptionalism. You never deal with any of the things in your own intray, such as moral decay within and surrounding your church, but feel free to deal in the supposed failings of others. You stand for nothing but genteel and dead-end intellectual dilletantism. By even raising your voice on this issue while your church remains so weakened under your guidance you shame your calling. The best thing you could do for the next ten years is shut up, saying nothing but that which affects your church life directly. By doing so you might just start to plant the seeds of some good- but don't count on it, or the grand effort of saying nothing will all be wasted. (hat tip A Tangled Web)

Continental uplift.

Sort of hoping that Mrs Merkel wins today. I hope she turns out to be more radical that the MSM are saying, just as I hope she puts their 'Schroder closing the gap' theme down properly. Maybe one reason for hoping that she causes a stir is simply that this might distract bored and complacent continentals from their boring complacent lives, where they tolerate sleaze, gross behaviour and the most virulent anti-Americanism- not to mention anti-Britishness (see also above link).

I notice the death figures for Katrina are such that it's possible that the final figure may be less than a thousand- which makes a stark contrast to what happened in France during a heatwave two years ago. The truth is that America at its worst would be like most continental countries at their best- and to say that would be just to go with the economics, let alone the 'can do' attitude of most American states (an ethos which Lousiana may be unusually low on)./ Some interesting reflection on several Euro fronts here.

The day after's Update: actually not very uplifting, was/is it? Wonderful advert for the Lib Dem proportional representation policy though, as they meet in Blackpool.