Headlines for your friends.

Now CNN is not, I think you will agree, the scourge of the liberal establishment- yet they know how to frame headlines (and indeed articles) as a matter of course that don't confer an unwarranted respectability on the subject of the article, that don't show that institutional regard that one pillar of the liberal orthodoxy has for another.

The BBC is different. Institutional in such a way that they may determine the qualifications for institutionality, they can say 'Clinton due to open his library', and we all say, 'of course, Clinton's Library- what could be more proper than to mark its opening with an official ceremony and a party led by the likes of Bono and The Edge?' (of whose involvement the BBC religiously informs us).

CNN don't mention Bono or The Edge (the BBC there seemingly doing their bit for intra-U2 equality). Instead they major on the different reactions of the public to Clinton's portentious statement.

No, we don't just get Clinton's whine that people didn't focus on what he did in government (he should count himself lucky they got distracted by what he did, so to speak, on the side), we also get partisan supporters who look absurd: '"We had to show this was a systematic attempt by Republican leaders to de-legitimize Bill Clinton and the administration," said former Clinton adviser Bruce Lindsey'. IN otheer words, we get to know that this is a rankly partisan attempt to shape or possibly reshape, the way history is seen. Good luck to them- they'll need it.

The BBC, by contrast, sound like the tourist guide- who designed it, who opened it, what's inside, and what Bill thinks of it. Ok, ok, ok, Beebies- what I want to know is, 'what's going on here?' You always pride yourselves in reading between the lines of the VRWC, so what's with Clinton's Library that you might as well be quoting admission prices?

But, anyway, to move on- how's about that other grossly fat sacred cow, the UN? How comes it that CNN can rightly entitle their piece 'Rare U.N. meeting on Sudan', whereas the BBC proudly declare : 'Sudan conflict under UN spotlight' .

In other words, 'never fear, the UN are here' versus 'about time too and shouldn't we have done this last year?'

A)Which is closer to the truth? B)Which shows an attachment to the way things are that betrays them as pure establishment?

"Well, Britain gave its support, but I did not see much in return."-

Jacques Chirac (presumably speaking in French or demonstrating his ignorance of the subtleties of English tenses) referring, as is his wont, to Iraq.

Alas, I'm pretty sure it's not only English tenses that Jacques is ignorant of- it's also the extent of his own isolation.

Let's assume for a moment that Britain hadn't backed the US. That could have severed us from much more loyal friends, like Australia for instance, not to mention the States themselves. Why would we want to do that? For a cold French shoulder to cry on, as usual? Of course the US might have delayed longer without Britain, but alternatively they might have gone sooner, since it was TB who played the friendship card to force an attempt to placate the same UN that had been (we now know) infiltrated so badly by the wishes of the Iraqi despot through Oil-for-Food. Had the US gone in sooner, the success might have been more complete, including such things as WMD stockpiles as a bonus. Still, despite our hesitation, it was the right course of action, and we can retain close ties with two newly re-elected Anglospheric leaders for some years as a result. It's also the case that much of Europe was closer in spirit to the UK position than to that of the French- as was witnessed by their inability to remain silent.

So, Chirac's wrong. We've retained more than we've lost by the Iraq invasion, even in narrowly diplomatic terms- let alone the longer term fruits of democratic change, or change anyway, in the Middle East.

But of course it was right anyway to support and facilitate the ousting of Saddam Hussein, terrorist sugar daddy and inveterate plotter against the UK and US, whose regime was always personal in pursuing its vendettas, and cunning to boot.

Meanwhile, Roger Simon follows another hypothesis.

Bigger than you thought: that's UNScam, not Lord Black's alleged misdemeanours; though to look at the BBC's website you'd think Lord Black's champagne lifestyle the only 'fraud' going. It would be so much more a mark of a serious broadcaster were those priorities to be reversed

The BBC, true to their personality obsession, are more concerned with Colin Powell's significance (which has always fascinated them) than with the significance of Saddam's illicit billions. The protectiveness such selectivity shows towards Galloway and the French in particular is touching. One for all and all for one. Galloway, incidentally, happens still to be pursuing the Telegraph in the courts. I wonder if there is a theme emerging here.

The little things they say...

I had to laugh as I followed Martin Asser's account of preparations for Yasser's burial, as it entered another purple patch patch with the following:

'The roar of bulldozers and the shrill "beeb, beeb, beeb" of their warning signals mingled with the mournful sound of funerary verses from the Koran floating over Mr Arafat's Muqata compound throughout Thursday.'

Indeed, it would be just like the BBC to seek a formal role in eulogising the dead wannabe despot, and lamenting his demise, but I think it was just an unfortunate choice of expression, a freudian slip perhaps.

The passage I quote now represents the only inkling of irreverence towards the former Arafat:

'But that may leave only about three hours for the general public to pay their respects to a man who - for all his faults and failings - is acknowledged to be the father of their struggle for independence.'

That's really Arafat warts and all, isn't it?

Meanwhile there is an interesting contrast between the way the non-cooperation of Egypt and Israel with the Arafat bandwagon is represented.

Of Israel, we are told that 'Israel for its part has refused to honour Mr Arafat's long-held wish to be buried in Jerusalem.'

Of Egypt, meanwhile, we hear that 'Palestinian officials say they had asked Egypt to keep the body until Saturday to avoid any crush - but Egypt, for its own reasons, refused.'

It's crazy world when it is not recognised why Israel might not wish to bury Yasser Arafat in Jerusalem, thereby making a whole new 'holy place' for the Palestinians to wrangle over with them. 'Refused to honour'- I don't like the sound of that; refused to allow a terrorist statesman to continue his malevolent impact on Israel sounds more like it to me.

But, although it might appear that Asser is ignorant of the impact a Jerusalem-buried Arafat mighthave, that's clearly not the case. Asser not only seems aware of Arafat's impact, he seems to celebrate it vicariously through thoughts about Arafat's own preference for publicity:

'For all its poignancy, this is probably a day that Mr Arafat would have relished.

An honour guard has been practising its final salute to Arafat
Back on the world stage again for a major international event after years being pinned down by Israeli forces in two rooms at the Muqata, just a stone's throw from his burial site today.'

It's really more of the old 'sins of the fascist Jewish-fascist conspiracy will come back to haunt them' trash that we've grown used to in the deaths of Yassin and Rantissi. Even the though the Israelis didn't kill Arafat (though, really, I mean, who knows? Room for a Beeb Beeb documentary perhaps?) the BBC are determined to blow on the grey embers of Arafat's legacy.

Update: I shouldn't have joked about the Beeb documentary. Given reactions like these, it's a matter of when not if.

Furthermore, the BBC website has headlined Asser's subsequent, burial effort, 'a people's burial'- echoes of Diana, methinks

An Obit For Arafat: Powerline cuts on the media crap to reach the man beneath (or so it seems to me).

An interesting contrast here between the coverage of France's troubles in the Ivory Coast from the BBC, and a more insightful approach from the EU Referendum blog.

For the BBC, the French are somehow refreshingly no nonsense, a sort of unAmerican, Socialist minded Indiana Jones, whose escapades must be reported indulgently. Chirac 'bangs heads' together, 'loses patience'- meanwhile the French UN 'mandate' goes unquestioned, when all they really did was strong arm a pliant pro-French organisation into sanctioning and aiding the defence of French colonial interests that have endured for more than a century. Equally unquestioned are the words of Governent proxy, Le Monde's Stephen Smith (*reassuringly Anglo for the job of excusing the French follie): "It is up to the international community to decide whether France is an obstacle or a factor for conflict resolution."

It is true that, of necessity given their coverage of Iraq, the BBC describe the situation as a 'quagmire', but the reality is that France, like some revered pensioner in international affairs, has been given a free pass.

Some superb analysis from Arthur Chrenkoff- who I normally associate with Good News, but who is capable of contemplating the other sort with equal grace. His takes on Fallujah & Kosovo at the moment are must-reads in my view. Especially his views on Kosovo, the dirty secret of the interventionist fringe.

One Step Ahead

That's the art of politics it seems to me: being one step ahead.

Bush was one step ahead of John Kerry; Howard one step ahead of Latham, and Blair is one step (or several) ahead of the Conservatives.

So what is it, to be one step ahead?

Well, Douglas Alexander, a relatively young Home Office Minister, demonstrates the 'touch' by his analysis of the US political situation and the lessons that can be drawn for a Labour Britain. Melanie Phillips, meanwhile, has been right about most movements of the zeitgeist for quite a while, and she picked up on Alexander's openness to the lessons Dubya's success can teach to make a prediction:

'it will once again be Tony Blair who grasps the need to appeal to the socially conservative centre (however bogus that appeal may be), while the Tories continue to commit slow political suicide by not recognising the need for such an appeal at all.'

Naturally I find this quite scary, especially as it relies in part on the success of an idea that Alexander calls 'manufactured' common sense. To me you don't manufacture commonsense, you appeal to it- which W. successfully did last week. It's one of the fundamental differences between a conservative and a socialist that socialists believe common sense can be 'manufactured'- a very different thing from, say, 'being learned by experience'. However, the lines do get blurred, as when a socialist describes 'creating a learning experience'. That's what Blair would like to do for us: create a learning experience where we associate Labour with Government, Pavlov-style.

Well, Alexander is at least one step ahead of The Conservatives, who couldn't recognise Dubya as anything except foreign to them and their values- and couldn't envisage any sort of synthesis of Republican success with Tory re-election (which wouldn't, you'd have thought, take a genius).

Another sort of 'one step ahead', a more exciting one, is demonstrated by Irwin Stelzer in the Weekly Standard. I've long suspected that W. was likely to be remembered as a great custodian of the US economy in a time of crisis. If Stelzer is to believed such a legacy is a certainty, and the UK and Europe are to be buffeted by economic waves- from China. If he's right then Bush will show, by the end of the next four years, that he truly has been one step ahead.

Election Reflection (late entry): Mr Free Market reminds me why he is so hilarious -especially when he gets his lettering in the right order- as he comments on seeing the election through the BBC lens.

Filled with Pain au Chocolat:

That's the experience of the French intervention in the Ivory Coast (the French describe that country somewhat autre). Read this article about Coastal unrest and you find human shields, 'friendly fire incidents', a local leadership you can't trust, French citizens as targets, and increased troop deployments to deal with unrest- and the big question that is looming over it all is 'why?'

The only thing I can imagine is that it's that pesky baking-military complex again and that it's all about cocoa.

Election Reflection


The BBC is running a page for US voters to explain to bemused and befuddled Europeans why they voted for GWB. All the entries I troubled to read were extraordinarily well put together and spelt- as though thoroughly edited- except one:

'There is a lot of Biblical teaching on how God judges nations. The story of Lot is one example on how corrupt societies corrupt good people and bring down a community. Gay marriage and abortion are a threat to our culture and security. I voted to preserve the morale values of this country.
Howard, Chicago, USA'

I can't help wondering why that might have been.

In other election reflection, it seems appropriate here to note the energetic study of Steve Sailer, who, despite often criticizing the Prez., doubts whether Kerry was acccurately portrayed as having the higher I.Q. of the two men. Not that I'm a fan of the intelligence quotient system, but since they mentioned it first...

Finally, last but not at all least, the olympian (I mean his talent and achievements) Hugh Hewitt has written a terrific article about the Democrat defeat and what, in completing a phase of history that began in the sixties, it means for the future. His opinions are conciliatory and visionary, I'd say.

So much to say.

I'll begin by saying that Mark Steyn was right (phew!) about the US Presidential election.

More importantly, his thoughts about the Bin Laden tape are vital and fascinating. I posted about this earlier, and there are points of agreement.

Also, I think Steyn is at his best when he knows his audience is hostile- several of his Irish Times articles have had a degree of clarity and originality which even surprised as avid a consumer (sorry Mark- I'll pay you later) of Steyn's lines as I am.

On Osama-

'he seems to be repositioning himself from holy warrior to torpid 1950s pan-Arab secular nationalist.'

On the Left-

'if I were a Democrat, I would be deeply ashamed at the way my favourite talking-points have been taken up so enthusiastically by my country’s enemies. Not just My Pet Goat, but the whole Bush-stole-Florida thing. In the heat of partisan politics, the left has failed to understand that these are arguments that diminish not just their target but an entire political culture.'

On Osama's use of the Left (with acknowledgement to 'Aussie wag' Tim Blair)-

'“It appeared to him [Bush] that a little girl’s talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers.”

Ha-ha. It’s the way he tells ‘em. But Blair pointed out that, unlike Michael Moore, who just used the book’s title as a cheap gag at the President’s expense, Osama went to the trouble of mastering the plot. In My Pet Goat, the eponymous hero prevents his little friend’s dad’s car being stolen by butting the thieves. If you go down to a polling station tomorrow and talk to the anti-Bush crowd, you’ll notice that, despite having been doing the “Shrub sat there reading My Pet Goat for seven whole minutes!” cracks to like-minded chums for six months, your average leftie windbag hasn’t been motivated to find out anything about the book beyond the title.'

All of this, and Steynian punning genius, reducing Osama to the mere 'bin man', the purveyor of garbage- much like his 'familiar' Moore.

OoooK, this post has turned into a Mark Steyn appreciation moment. I have a lot of thoughts about the BBC just now, too, but they'll have to wait. I should also say, while I'm here, a big thank you to Mark for all his wonderful columns. I'll have to revive my letter writing habits and tell him more directly.

I think that when you listen into French radio the day after the night before a US election result (as I did), and find the presenters' tones sombre, their subject 'stability' and their prognosis an uncomfortable time for M Chirac, you know it's been a good night for GWB.

Update:

Meanwhile...

An Indymedia guy reflects on the outcome:

'Personally, I played my bongos at many rallies to defeat Bush. I had some phat beats going sometimes for hours, I really gave it my all.

How could this happen?'

...And, by the way, I love the BBC's graphic dept.

Another Way:

After reading the Moore/Bin Laden tripe mentioned in the post below (which is unfortunately somewhat necessary reading) I was refreshed by reflecting on this analysis from Amir Taheri. Kind of a different way of seeing the Bush Admin., I think you'd have to say.

Here it is:

That Democratic election broadcast transcript in full- via LGF, who else?

I recommend that you read it all, for the light it casts on the Michael Moore, sorry, Bin Laden mentality, and especially how he seeks to understand America. It's vastly more informative than the excerpts we've received from the press, which leads me to think that though they can't formulate an original idea to save their lives they know dynamite when it's thrown at them.

It's interesting how much Bin Laden has an eye for economics. It's interesting how much he taps into the thinking of Western liberals to critique the allegedly blind leadership of the shrub- he even cites the Royal Institute of International Affairs as a source for the boast that Al Qaeda's wisdom surpasses that of the World's superpower. He seems to know all the 'right' people, including, infamously, the 'neutral' Robert Fisk.

In short, it's the best liberal critique of GWB that I've read, and it comes from one of the worst mass-murderers at large in the world today- and that, surely, shows the depths of depravity to which our Liberal intelligencia has sunk, when they can't outflank a jumped up murderer like Bin Laden, and instead become his helpmates.

And yes, I do pray that GWB succeeds in his re-election bid, big style.

As for Michael Moore, he's busy being himself, which has already proven more than helpful to Osama:

'There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)'

Right now, quickly, I endorse Bush, like Natalie, and for almost exactly the same reasons! And, like, neither of us can vote, anyway.

Yes, and I'm disgusted by Barabara Plett of the BBC- but then I'm disgusted by some of their audience, too.

So Mark Steyn was wrong and Osama is still alive: but why make a come back only to deliver such an easily ridiculed message? (hopefully it's the only surprise Al Qaeda will spring this election season).

UNscam: a true story

It's been a long time since I updated concerning the UN Oil for Fraud scandal, so this is not a bad point to take notice of, from a Wall Street Journal editorial:


'Saddam Hussein exploited the program to run the largest bribery scheme in the history of the world.

Yes, we mean that literally'

...

And for the doubters:

'It can't be stressed enough that both the Duelfer and Volcker investigations confirm that this global web of corruption is no mere allegation trumped up by Ahmed Chalabi and "neoconservatives," '

All of which contrasts rather starkly with the rather non-story about the missing explosives which our biased national broadcaster considered fit for their frontpage for several Kerry-pandering days.

Andrew Sullivan: Wrong about the War on Terror, wrong about Iraq, Bush, and gay marriage, and now... wrong about Hitchens endorsing Kerry. Actually, they still disagree, even about this, as Hitch makes clear in the Nation.

The Beatification of William:

Once again I am reminded of the BBC's boundless appetite for romanticising the Democratic challenge to President Bush. There's no doubt it takes two to tango, but the BBC is near contravening obscenity laws in the way it holds aloft the form of Clinton for the world to admire.

Adam Brookes writes that 'He makes good television and he generates copy.' as though that were a judgement beyond the BBC's control. I actually think that if there ever was an instance of an empty suit, Clinton might have been it.

Meanwhile they are running out of respectful terms for Kerry. This time they resort to 'lugubrious' to express the absence of personality in the stiff from Massachusetts.

Kerry, says Brookes, wants to show that he can bring the good times back:

'It was on Bill Clinton's watch, say the Democrats, that America was last in the black.'

Meanwhile Brookes has already coined his own view of the nineties- the 'roaring 90's'- which lends Kerry some extra credibility, and he doesn't take a moment to explain that what Clinton's 'watch' really meant was a passive if not prostrate (ahem) attitude to a growing terrorist threat. Oh well.

Oh well, all that remains is to insult the Repuglicans with some trademark BBC prejudice:

'The Republican Party - many of whose members retain a boundless loathing for Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary - put out a well-crafted sneer as Mr Clinton took to the stump.'

The BBC, you see, constructs articles, and indeed its whole coverage, with a scrupulous attention to fairness; while the Repugnicants spend all their time crafting their slime and sneer campaigns. I hope that's clear to all. Any questions?