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

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

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

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

Frum ends his post by quoting from a recent (unpublished, sadly) article from Al-Alusi- which I found quite penetrating.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

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

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

To quote Frum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pants!

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, the BBC- well and truly hipsters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fine Line or a Crooked Path?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BBC: market leaders in conspiracy theories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Iraq only seemed like a gamble.

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

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

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

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

Read the whole thing. (via Real Clear Politics)

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

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

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

The Left Turns as One (almost).

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

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

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

And you can quote me on that.'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote Kilmartin,

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

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

A Time to Crow (not eat crow)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Post Updated)

What's happening to the Conservatives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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