Great response by IraqtheModel to the Hezbullah march: 'bringing too many people by buses doesn't mean that you're right'. The bottom line is that only anti-democratic forces could have created a demo that big, and the boys from The Model know of what they talk. Lacking commonsense like that, of course, is what makes the BBC's view of things so hopelessly skewed (ItM quotes a BBC report which appears to be suffering from Assad's shock and awe 'em tactic.)

In other affairs, I'm glad to see that Myers thinks Bush is about to make clear that Adams is N.I.'s Arafat. (thx ATW)

As a sidenote, for which I can't offer a meaningful link, my University of York Alumni magazine-(received recently) -gave their verdict on the US general election just as the Guardian might have (say no more), and then ran an article alongside a large picture of Diane Abbot, New Lab. supporter of the Iraq War, shaking hands two-fistedly with the Yasser in 2003 (the article was about Abbot herself, her background, career etc). Trying indirectly to make amends with the Muslims in her constituency, perhaps, by spreading around as widely as she can a picture of her with the Islamofascists' chief saint? More New Lab two-faced behaviour concerning the WoT. They really don't get it (all that well(at all)).

But Universities are among the worst offenders when it comes to building prejudice though appearing rational, as Melanie Phillips reports once again

American journalists can be pompous, says Simon Jenkins (snigger, snigger), as he says that bloggers have put him on his mettle like never before (snigger, snigger). (ps. Scott knocks his p.o.v. beautifully)

Debunking and Debating.

Got to start with this outstanding pigeon-holing of Hunter S. Thompson and the cult which seems to enthrall many middle-aged and not-so middle-aged liberal Americans. Hugh Hewitt blasts thus:

'Ah yes, the Nixon wars –when journalists bravely stood tall against the machine guns and machetes of the death squads roaming D.C.

I don’t have access to Lexis-Nexis on the plane, so I can’t search “Hunter Thompson w/i 1000 Pol Pot,” but I don’t recall any “fearless” reporting on the Cambodian holocaust, or the trials of Bukovsky, Sharansky Sarkaroff and Solzhenitsyn. Just stream of consciousness paranoia brought on by too many drugs, and later idolized by mid-life-crisis-enduring salary men with editors and small expense accounts/'

If there is a 'stupid America', it's the sort that idolised the likes of Thompson. The whole 'great American Novel' thing is about as dated as flares in my view, and a massive distraction from America's real concerns.

Speaking of which, I notice a lot of floundering about concerning whether the events in Lebanon are good or bad. Syria withdraws- but with Hezbullah's endorsement for its influence in Lebanon. Syria withdraws with assurances that its power is not resented and its influence will be undiminished (notice how the BBC (above link) give a leading role in this withdrawal process to the UN's representative, Roed Larssen- he arrives, Syria withdraws, coincidentally. Just another of those little nuances about who is moving events and who has authority to do so. The BBC's transnationalism at work. Also note the way that the BBC is prepared to report the stage-managed withdrawal- 'government supporters were bussed to the frontier for a carefully stage-managed occasion',- but not so much the obviously stage-managed rally; here, they limit themselves to saying the kind of thing anyone deviously organising a vast propaganda effort would be happy with: 'Hezbollah officials handed out Lebanese flags and directed the men and women to separate sections, but the crowds were so large they spilled out of Riad al-Solh Square into surrounding streets.' . This is in keeping with its general presentation of Arab regimes and allegedly popular terrorist-entwined organisations as manipulative to some extent, but largely benign). Children were bussed in to fill the square for the Hezbullah rally, according to this report, but the level of organisation, just viewed by itself, which swamped the anti-Syrian demonstrators was clearly daunting, and intended to be daunting, to those who hope for a pro-Western democratic resolution to the Lebanon's powerplay.

In related stuff, the Economist believes that the neo-cons are on the rise again (I don't watch events in this microscopic way, but they do), which is code for saying that events in the Middle East have vindicated the neo-cons convictions about Iraq, but not completely and nor will they do so.

Overall it looks like a soft-shoe shuffle between Iran-supported Hezbullah and a tactically-minded Syria. Its the old case that among despotic mentalities, faced with a democratic superpower like the US, there is no need to even mention the saying that my enemy's enemy is my friend. All the same, I'd say the pro-democracy, anti-Syria rallies are a staging post in the power struggle that will one day- one day soon, given the spontaneous vigour of the democratic impulse in the region- produce democratic revolution, and wipe Hezbullah off the map entirely.

(Good info for the above post came from Austin Bay and Real Clear Politics)

I was going to comment on this BBC article by Justin Webb about Dan Rather, well-picked up by USS Neverdock, but I think I'll just leave you the links and the thought that this article illustrates very nicely why the words 'Right Wing'- rather than 'Left Wing'- and 'dirty tricks' have been made into a commonly known collocation. Because, I would venture to answer, the legacy media, of which the BBC is chief bastion, decrees it so.

Andrew Bowman looked at other aspects of the BBC's coverage of Rather at Biased BBC.

Webb is just too secure in his bias, almost like some Eastern European aparachik (anyone help with the spelling?) of the 1970's. (I've observed this before, I know, but it's Webb's almost brusque self-assurance, only feasible in such a cosseted organisation as the Beeb, which seems to bring this observation on).

Meanwhile, speaking of Eastern Europe, Tomas Kohl has a an opinion of Leftists in his own country of the Czech Republic which seems to ring true:

'Reagan's contribution notwithstanding, the pinkos could barely wipe their ass in 1989.'

Sometimes an opinion that has relevance for BBC journalists with anti-conservative or anti-US (same thing really) authorial diarrhea, unfortunately. They leave the blogosphere to wipe it for them. However, to summarise what both Kohl and Marc of Neverdock are saying (loosely), those who won't wipe their politicised journalistic arses will get them whipped well and truly.

Frum draws the right conclusion from the big Hezbollah march through Lebanon. It just shows what you're up against.

Instapundit pondered some viewpoints on the demo, with links (surprisingly!). At one, interesting, link, a commenter to the post came up with a criticism of the BBC which seemed very typical (right down to the misspelling of Orla Guerin's name):

'The crowd was obviously predominantly male and angry. But the BBC report by Orna Gheiron (sp?) went out of its way to show a lot of women, including mostly uncovered ones. The BBC were clearly doing a little propaganda, as usual.'

Casual observers and seasoned ones all think twice before trusting BBC reporting.

Meanwhile, The Belmont Club has a more in-depth survey and analysis of what the march means.

Seems like the below post caught something of a wave amongst the Nionist brigade. Scott Burgess assesses the Indy's effort. Verdict? Halfbaked too, unsurprisingly. (via Instapundit)

Meanwhile, Melanie Phillips, eye to the big picture via Daniel Pipes vision, shows what serious thinkers might be doing at the moment.

The ever shrewd (I've given up calling him deceitful, it doesn't pay any) Paul Reynolds has come up with an exit strategy for the BBC. Just like those who are covering their backsides regarding the unresolved but politically dangerous issue of WMD, Mr Reynolds turns round and says, 'it wasn't just me, others believed it too' when it comes to the anti-war fervour which has mastered the BBC's coverage for so long. For the French and Italian, Russian and so on Intelligence services in this analogy, you have to substitute Fareed Zakaria, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, and 'sceptics of American policy like Rosemary Hollis', who probably demonstrated different degrees of scepticism but were never a million miles from Reynolds himself in viewpoint. Throw in a disclaimer about things not being quite the same as the last time Reynolds was wrong about regime change, in 1989, and a little homily to the new entrants to the EU's grande projet, and you have a fine recipe known as 'Reynold's home baked (half-baked) climbdown'.

Of course we have to garnish with a little sideswipe at neo-con imperial hegemonistic attitudes, add a little detail about the role of the Prince of Darkness, and implicate the whole in an Israeli conspiracy theory, but after all that is completed you are about ready to eat your humble pie.

'Some are cynical about American attitudes and regard the policy of spreading "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East as a way of justifying intervention.

Khader Khader, an analyst with the Palestinian group the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, traces US policy back to a document issued in 1996 by American neo-conservatives, led by Richard Perle, called Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.'

But not quite. First you have to retain your 'balance':

'Whether you regard American policy as benign or malign, something is going on which needs watching.'

Then you have to remind yourself (before eating) that you were wrong about Eastern Europe, so that requires that you have to blame someone else for it. Find a nice anecdote to use over dinner:

'Shortly after the Berlin Wall was breached, there was agitation for the reunification of Germany. The question was when this might happen.

On a visit to East Berlin, I and other correspondents met a rather dishevelled British diplomat who seemed to spend most of his time on the streets.

He predicted that East Germany would collapse within the year.

His boss the ambassador, a rather grand man who seemed to spend most of his time in the embassy, would have none of that.

Guess who was right?'

Yes, just guess. It wasn't Paul. Bon Appetit, cher Paul.

BTW, I think I should mention that I do believe Reynolds is right about something: it isn't like Eastern Europe. It'll be much more successful than that. See Steyn on the timeline for the MidEast winds of change. (thx ATW)

Can someone tell me who on earth the BBC are quoting at the beginning of this article (maybe friendly Mr S. Editor will reveal all later)? It just seems like the Beeb breathlessly wanted to get the message out that this guy Bolton is a nutcase *BEWARE* before anyone started to complain about the 'hardliner' tag. Hardline on what anyhow? Could be one of their nameless 'correspondents', I suppose- there are plenty of candidates for anti-US paranoid outbursts out there.

Update: Ah, the quotemarked 'hardliner' has become a hardliner in fact. So the BBC is saying now they know for sure a hardliner is coming to the UN.

Ongoing BBC violence- to the notion of fairness.

They're still trying to nail this one. They're losing. But it won't stop them.

According to this report, 'Six in 10 Italians now think the war was wrong.'

'Now' compared to what, exactly? Has the death of a Communist's saviour changed the whole equation? Would they have bothered to drop this in without it carrying the implication of another in a serious of ultimately significant blunders (filed among notes for chapt. 1007, entitled 'alienating key allies', of John Simpson's fantasised epic work of history, 'How the US got it wrong in Iraq and lost their world superpower status')on the way to one of history's famous military disasters (yes, they mean the US war on Saddam, really)? Who do they think they're kidding?

They may like to talk about how 'Iraq insurgents seize initiative' but they don't talk about the gradual lessening of US troops deaths (probably due to troop tactical changes, but still specifically noteworthy). They even happily contradict their headlines with such general, deliberately vague- almost coy- phrases as 'Although figures can be misleading, the general level of attacks since the 30 January elections is thought to have dropped a little from the highs recorded in the run-up to the poll.' Initiative? What initiative? the point is that having set the tone they can afford to let their anti-war guard drop a a little. It's known at the BBC as 'balance'.


When they present the violence they decline to mention that terrorists using terrorist tactics are targeting their fellow muslims. Rather than be specific and consistent they frequently change the nature of the descriptions of violent acts and casualties to foster a sense of Iraq as they would like us to see it. They sew together a pastiche of violence- 'Violence also continued in Baghdad'- with which they seek to cloak events. You may say, 'where in Baghdad, that huge city?', or 'exactly when?', but they won't tell you. 'Violent place, Baghdad', you can almost hear the colonial broadbrush being swished from the comfort of the hotel bar.

Of course they don't think that the US invasion of Iraq will prove to have been the miliary disaster that many hoped it would be (I can recall many a journalist of all stripes hoping that the American people would 'learn a lesson' over this). What they think is that its their job to make it harder for the US, to make it painful, to make them feel that pain and us to feel they feel it. It's not. There are already people who dedicate themselves to do that, and they're Islamofascists- for whom the BBC are emotional siphons. It's my definition of being on the 'the other side'.

And of course that's what the BBC are, in the long run. Whistling anti-US tunes while waiting for the transnational cavalry to be called in, the so-called 'insurgents' will do for entertainment in the meantime.

A Statement of Intent:

Helen from EURef lays out the philosophy of her blog- which with a snappier title would already be more successful than even its current high visitor numbers suggest. But, in that case, it would be less the kind of intelligent and respectworthy effort that it is.

Euroscepticism is misnamed too: it is actually a vision for the world. A real one, and the only one of substance (substance doesn't have to be large, just reliable). Never judge the book by its cover. The Commission has no purpose (that it can admit to), the Parliament is not democratic, the Constitution is a list of rules for bureaucrats, and so on. Presented with such a can of worms I would simply head toward the nearest bin and throw it away.

Condescending, Lazy, Ignorant- that'll be the media, the judiciary and the political classes of the UK, amongst other folk. I suppose that would qualify as basically the entire edifice of the opinion forming class of this country. Academics, though often corresponding to the above description, do not exclusively so- there are always clever men and women, the world over, who spend a lot of time in small rooms effectively burrowing into various media, which is very nice for them and occasionally invaluable for us.

So what brought that little barney on? Well, one thing is Melanie Phillips' indictment of the court case presented by that muslim girl (you know, the one flanked by wannabe Islamic heavies, chest heaving with the excitement of crusading for Allah). I saw her on Sky giving her little peroration to her fellow jihadis and rebuking us poor dhimmis, and it was no surprise to find from the ever alert Melanie that there was more to the case than ever came out in court. [Matter of fact I was recently involved in a court case myself (I defended myself actually), and I firmly walloped the pompous prosecuting counsel in my minor case by introducing a few simple facts and a little logic to accompany my self-belief. It was quite funny to see. The judges seemed ok, but waiting to be led. It was a very minor case, but I think it gave me some major insights. One was never to follow the advice of a London Barrister, even a friend, without thinking it through for yourself.]

As Melanie says, 'In the great row over Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s draconian control orders, the argument is that the judiciary should take control of anti-terror procedures in order to protect our fundamental liberties from untrustworthy politicians. But the terrible truth is that the English judiciary can no longer be trusted to safeguard us.'

But what really pains me about the hijab case, what really disturbs me and points out to me the incredible darkness at the heart of our ruling classes, is the fact that the Prime Minister's wife, QC Cherie Blair/Booth, was the legal representative for this girl's case (why Melanie passes this by is an interesting question, given her obvious interest in the case). Andrew Bowman rightly pointed this out on Biased BBC, since the BBC had ignored it (surprise) in their coverage, but it shows that our Prime Minister who supposedly 'gets it' about the War on Terror really doesn't get it at all (and yes, yes, it's only his wife etc, but honestly!). This may only be a cultural victory for those concerned, and a cultural concession of a much lower order weighed in our current scales, but who can weigh it in the scales of significance over the longer term? Melanie rightly points out that the hijab is significant within Islam, not merely in contradistinction to the dhimmis outside that religion. It's a tool of radicalism amongst young people.

You may have, and I might have, considered this a small cultural item, but why, if so, are people so determined to fight the battle and so triumphant when they win? It's because it sets a cultural battle raging, it creates a point around which religious fervour can pivot and exclude others so as to embellish its power over its adherents and recusants. And the French understand this- read and weep. The French establishment may be appalling and ultimately hellbent, but at least people who join it have to have some intellectual rigour (and be able to lie through their teeth). The British lot can provide the part in brackets only.

All of which brings me to Steyn, a beacon on a hill of his own creation it sometimes seems. In his latest effort for the Spectator (and doesn't it need some?), he gets to the keywords as he surveys the unending idiocy of certain people in the fourth estate and beyond it. 'Lazy', 'condescending', 'reductive'- all are applied during the finale of his dissection of the defeat of a whole body of viewpoints.

My only quibble is that Steyn has no need to defend himself by pointing to 'I told you so' phrases. The only thing I can recall him being wrong about (apparently) is the vital signs of Osama Bin Laden. This Steyn may have called wrongly, but it was always an 'either/or' with little to assist the judgement. Compared with being absolutely right about Saddam's hole in the ground abode when everyone else had grander notions this is no evidence of Steyn's insight, which is almost invariably remarkable.

Not so what Steyn calls 'the Nionists'. They've been wrong about everything, and the one thing they claim to be right on without question, the WMD issue, will never make a definite cross in their wilted collumn of correct judgements. They could still be wrong about that one and it will probably always be an undetermined issue, unless it falls the way of the 'neocons'.

But as for their willingness to condemn others to oppression at the hands of dictators, the Nionists will always smell of death because of that, and their nihilistic idiocy lives on to bear that at the centre of the establishment.

See also Steyn on Hotel Rwanda for articulate, artistic compassion.

Whatever your view on the current situation in Israel, we can be sure that this is where it's at. The American Thinker again provides a treatment of an issue with uncommon depth. This time it's a head-to-head between Neuwirth and Baehr, expressed through several propositions and rebuttals. I'm with Baehr, as Baehr is with Sharon; to put it in Neuwirth's terms, with Bush and Rice and, yes, ok, if she must, Powell.

Why do I disagree with Neuwirth? Because Sharon is building his wall, a la Robert Frost, and though to build a wall might make you a friendly neighbour content to live within constraints agreeable to the other party, it ain't necessarily so.

Also meanwhile, a fascinating inside track on military operations countering the threat of Iran- involving the French and Germans!- from the American Thinker.

Meanwhile, Marc at USS Neverdock makes a good point about a particular piece of BBC coverage. Words, numbers? Who cares?

World Wide Wisdom. In the development of the blogosphere, men like Victor Davis Hanson and The Belmont Club's Wretchard have given the Right side some practical and intellectual bite.

I found Hanson's interview with Chrenkoff (another innovator) really interesting. Although European- with the emphasis on Europe as a geographical expression here- I am really heartened to think that there are heads hard enough to counsel thus:

'So... we sit tight, praise them, and keep our powder dry, looking to see the fall out from Islamicism on their shores, and whether they curb anti-Semitism, get their birthrates up, rearm and make a real alliance, avoid antagonizing a surrounded Russia, and buy off an Iran or crazy former Soviet Republic. We cannot do much in all that and so should expect very little from them and get ready for some pretty crazy things coming out of Europe in the next few years. NATO as we know it is dead, and we have no idea what will follow—so we praise it to the skies.'

(textual highlighting mine)

Rearming Europe seems about as likely as uncastrating a EUnuch, but you never know. The only passion strong enough to gird up the loins might be l'anti-Americanism, which is a sickening thought.

Meanwhile Wretchard has thoughts too, but about the success of US policy in neutering terrorists by establishing democratic dissidence:

'To that extent even the most heinous attacks, like the carbomb which recently killed more than 100 in Iraq, have lost their bite. Psychologically speaking, the greatest contribution of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns is that they have shattered terrorism's myth of invincibility. The terrorists embarked on a maximum effort to dislodge the US from Iraq, employing every weapon of violence, political maneuver and propaganda they could muster and came up much the worse for wear. This lesson has not been lost to public perception and has emboldened dissidents all across the region.

The real challenge will be to find ways to respond to the campaign of spoiling terror which may be forthcoming. Unlike Iraq, where US forces can respond directly to challenge, the problem will be the ability of the US to affect events over the wider region in clandestine or indirect ways.'

Notice he mentions the carbomb/suicide bomb as a spent tactic in Iraq, but not elsewhere. I was thinking of Israel. How the Israeli government can respond to the interference (I'll call it that) of terrorists is a quandary to which no-one seems to have an answer. If at the onset of any atrocity they fight back, even haphazardly, I for one won't blame them.

(brought to you with the assistance of Instapundit)

One knows where one stands.

'The BBC's royal charter should be renewed and its licence fee extended for another 10 years' the BBC says, sorry, that should be 'a government Green Paper is expected to say.' (chirpy intro, nice photo of the relevant minister, bang on officialese presentation)

That is tragic news which I have been fully expecting. I think that the belief that anyone in a socialist government- or the TINOs- would truly grasp the nettle over the BBC's flagrant irresponsibility was always a far fetched one. On the other hand I believe that if one doesn't at some level confidently expect one can alter the status quo meaningfully there's little chance of success from protesting of whatever sort (however 'Talking Hoarsely' is actually a bit smitten with protest for protest's sake). I think we can, and we will, one day dismantle the labyrinth of featherbedded propaganda and nationalised neuroses that is the BBC, but it will take time.

Actually if the BBC were dismantled tomorrow that would considerably confuse a notion of bias in the British media which is currently relatively straightforward (though it would be change for the good). Other media organisations are subject to far more transience, as commercial enterprises and small organisations are, and their prejudices are weathervanes, largely. Commercial interests in the media are unilkely ever to promote such ideological fixity as the BBC, even if the entire field of public opinion is open to them, rather than just the entertainment/light news section. The BBC has pursued an ideological agenda since the days of the British Empire, since before the Elizabethan age began, and will continue to do so. One knows where one stands- not that one likes it.

The BBC gets in touch with DumbJon (so to speak): Showdown!

Maybe this is a Steyn-admiring, Beeb-bashing, blog about politics with no poetry (you may have noticed the incongruity). I don't know.

Anyway Steyn has a fantastic volte face in the Telegraph today, all optimism about the fall of the Middle East's 'Berlin Wall'. If I've understood rightly, fundamentally what he has in mind is the notion that we can either do things the hard way, or the easy way. By taking on the Iraq situation Bush has chosen the easy way on our behalf (though of course not in our name), which is despite that the less travelled way (there, see, poetry) that has made all the difference.

Having earlier mentioned the Mark Steyn / Austin Bay disagreement, I thought I should post this- Mark's reply to Austin's post. Via Steynonline. There's a good companion to that post in Steyn's latest Chicago Times effort. I do believe that Europe, the UK included, is going to have terrible times ahead as it wakes up to impossible situations of its own making.

Update... and Bay's reply. Maybe I'll have to come back to this issue, too.

Just a note about the BBC's World, which was once more in evidence on Sunday as I braved all manner of discouragements to catch up on the progress in their world-view.

Lys Doucet was occasionally able to remember that her 'Talking Point' progamme was not exclusively for bashing America, but only occasionally- like the children at Christmas that only occasionally remember to thank the giver of their gifts. Poor William Hill. As soon as I heard that this intrepid US caller to the BBC was from 'Texas' (you have to italicise as 'Texas/Texan' are only adjectives with pejorative connotations in the BBC lexicon) I knew he would be unlikely to last long. Sure enough, as soon as he said that the EU could go ahead and unify, and go on the 'offensive' if they wanted to (ie. be one of those other poles in world affairs they talk about), Lys had had enough and said something like 'that's not the kind of language we use over here', and it was goodbye anglo-saxon white-male sounding Mr Hill. Back to your 'Texan' cave.

Naturally the other callers, especially the incredibly whiny (thankfully exported) Brit from Germany, who had had a tough day at work when Mr Bush visited Mainz, were treated with far more respect- even though I do recall Doucet thanking the egregious 'Texan' very much for his worthless POV.