Oi, Carver- Noooo!

Not again please. Not content with his risible performances on Newsnight, Tom Carver is making errors galore as he attempts what presumably he considers sharp political analysis of the race for the Presidency.

When a journalist begins his article 'John Kerry had it all worked out. A decorated war hero against a Texan gunslinger who had bungled the first war he had chosen to fight. - apparently ignoring as though it didn't exist the invasion of Afghanistan- he has to be either foolish or incredibly sloppy in his thinking. Ok, perhaps Kerry is that sloppy, but it's too rich to have a BBC journalist aping him.

Carver specialises in sarcastic, colourful insults and slanders- which, on Newsnight, he delivers with such a motor-mouth it almost enters the mind subliminally.

Here though we get to take it in slowly as he calls the Bushies 'Yalie frat-boys' and characterises the Republican campaign as butchery. It seems to have, er, escaped his attention that Kerry has been re-christened the Kerrikazi candidate in recent days, being considered a craftsman of his own brand of self-slaughter by many. Kerry was 'lulled' into making his war service central to the Democrat convention, says Carver defensively.

Carver gets worse as he warms up. He says, wrapping two insults into one sentence, 'Americans, always keen to move on to the next thing, are running out of outrage over Iraq.'

So Americans have that famed 'short attention span', and are too shallow to care? This is supposed to be an analysis?

He says 'Iraq's currency as a political weapon is declining.' - something which is as crudely put as it could be. Did it occur to Carver to consider that Americans will warm towards candidates who do not use Iraq as a political weapon but as a solemn undertaking, and that this is really the Dems' problem? That the currency of Iraq will increase when the Democratic candidate shows incontrovertibly he is serious about it?

Carver is probably right when he says that Kerry needs to concentrate on attacking Bush's economic record, but there are several problems with this analysis too. No-one to my knowledge has really given Bush any credit for his management of a largely inherited recession, or made allowance for the massive blow that 9/11 struck to the US economy, or accepted the costs of homeland security and war with Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary evils, and then gone on to say what beyond those things Bush has done wrong. No-one has demonstrated that Kerry will be more fiscally prudent himself should he have the chance. Even where, who knows, the Dems may have a case, it seems like they haven't reached the starting blocks yet.

Coincidentally enough, it would seem, nor has Carver.

Melanie Phillips is back- and making excellent points.

There may be something faintly odd about the way she stands apart from her fellow journalists and lambasts their standards, but if she weren't making those points, from a British perspective who would be?

I love Melanie's attack on Sir Max Hastings. Barely tolerable when a successful, influential journalist in the early nineties, I've totally maxed-out on Hastings. His inability to articulate even basic distinctions in his blind criticism of Tony Blair and George Bush is combined with a sneering superior tone which makes him like a double migraine expressed in text.
Particularly ridiculous is his attack on Bush, who he says 'indulges both Ariel Sharon and Putin in any means they see fit, to suppress those who use terrorist methods, without heed to the need for diverse political responses, as well as sensitive military tactics'.

Lumping these two together is absurd. Sharon's policies have achieved some demonstrable success, and Sharon is a figure with both a strategy and unarguable democratic (as opposed to demagogic) credentials. Furthermore, Bush has limited influence over Putin, as the Russian opposition to the Iraq war showed. Oliver Kamm has amplified my views on Sharon's strategy (something I haven't pointed out till now). I'd characterise Sharon's plan as having a defence, an offence, and a whole game strategy- as an American sports coach might put it.

The main thing I agree with Melanie on however is that mindless attacks on public policy are effectively suicidal when all the time Jihadis are looking for how they can grab the initiative in enforcing fear and panic in the West. Hasting's Kerryesque mantra of using all the levers of politics and diplomacy, intelligence and special forces, is about as useful as taking nail-clippers to a tree infested with ivy. In fact you need secateurs- which combine raw power with a satisfying delicacy.

I think we need to support Putin in his attempt to build a political structure in Chechnya (after all, they just had a kind of election). How support can be given is another matter, but anything to increase the sense of hope of moderate Chechens. While Russia has been fairly criminally heavy-handed in Chechnya, they are facing problems that result from the diminution of post-Soviet Russian power, and the upsurge of potentially corrosive criminality, nationalism and religious fascism. that can't have been easy. All of these facts are evidenced by this Command Post article from Alan E. Brain (best to ignore the comments, I think).

The trouble with Chechnya, it seems, is that poverty and the desire for independence are not the only forces at work, and not the most coordinated. Islamism is the strongest force, because the best coordinated, and uses the others to rally its vicious ideology- because unlike the the first two it has a live ideology- unlike, say, poverty whose ideology, communism, is a fallen idol. Thus, according the Command Post and Dan Darling at Winds of Change (a post I linked to earlier, but a good one which really illuminates some things), the conflict has morphed gradually into a religious one- which suits Islam the religion of Jihad.

One thing I am sure of: Sir Max isn't helping.

[You'll have to forgive me, I seem to have done a lot of writing just recently]

Russian Lies (companion piece, I suppose to Truth and Russia)

An interesting article in the WaPo rounds up the lies that were told by Russian officials about the numbers of hostages being held at Breslan, and the way in which President Putin is distancing himself from the liars.

Greater honesty in Russian foreign and security policy would be a real step forward, and the overwhelming tragedy of Breslan might just focus their minds on being effective rather than pretentious. What would be really impressive next time round (which in itself is a dreadful thought) is if the Russians were to request the involvement of some of incredibly fine special forces that can be found in Britain, America, Israel or Australia.

Interestingly, Captain Ed reports an AP report that Russia has welcomed Israel's offer to share its experience in combatting terrorism.

Meanwhile, The Command Post reports on the Australian Intelligence links that have helped Russia to track down several al-Qaeda terrorists who have been liasing with Chechen rebels.

Let's hope that, rather than P.R. at a time of crisis, this represents a sea-change for Russian policy.

Although the terrorists made Breslan school a death trap, had the true numbers of children involved been known to the West a different outcome might have been foreseeable- assuming that honesty might lead to cooperation, which might have brought the world's finest anti-terror soldiers and theorists to Breslan. The tragic thing is that the Russians appeared so sensitive to criticism of heavy-handedness from previous incidents that they waited and dissembled for far too long, thinking they should spend quality time in talks with the killers- when all that did was give time for boobytapping to proceed apace, atrocities to multiply, and thirst to drive the whole collection of hostages and terrorists into a state of nervous breakdown, preparing the scene for its final stampede of death. I think they should have gone in within twelve hours- with of course the SAS at the fore.

Irony Bites.

Justin Webb of the BBC (a man, I should first of all point out, of some talent) tells us he has given an endorsement of George W. Bush, sort of.

He intended his remark to be patronising, but the Bush campaign thought it would play well amongst its base, so into the campaign literature it went:

"Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W Bush".

This highly amusing situation, given Webb's likely political persuasion, raises an interesting possibility: maybe the Bush campaign are taking the BBC's ludicrous cynicism and irony and getting their own small revenge by using it to help the President out. Or maybe the Bush campaign think BBC journalists might actually say something positive about W. with a straight face- unlikely I feel.

Perhaps it was out of irritation that Webb got all sulky his latest article.

Commenting on the indifference of New Yorkers to Bush's convention, he says

'And these folks, as the president would say, are the ones who are about to be incinerated if John Kerry gets in and the French take over the defence of the US. Such ungratefulness'

While mildly amusing, it has the fault of being utterly false in reflecting what 'the president would say'. Once more an obsession is revealed with pinning the criticisms of what they would call 'proxies' (in this case clearly the target would be Zell Miller) to Bush himself.

Webb goes on to demonstrate the Leftist's view of political campaigning from the Right.

He talks of 'the steely way in which the Republican party is capable of using anything to its advantage', and how 'Senator Kerry has discovered that words uttered in the past can be brought to life and used as the party sees fit.'

The first statement conjures something like a 'rat among the garbage' analogy. The trouble with the second statement (as everyone knows) is that it was the challenger who brought his previous sayings to life by deliberately playing on his service record and patriotism. He 'reported for duty' after thirty years, like those Japanese soldiers on Pacific Islands who refused to believe that World War Two was over.

The only thing the Republican party has going for it, according to Webb, is the will to win. He talks quite blithely about 'all that has gone wrong', without stating what those things might be- as though they were self-evident. However, to this reader it is only evident that Bush's 'mistakes'- whether you mean Iraq, the economy, or 'mis-speaks'- have no basis in any established consensus.

The undercurrent of Webb's dismissal of the Bush record is that the Repugs. will only win by playing dirty.

To underline this theme he closes with what seems a deeply questionable smear on the Bush campaign:

'At the beginning of the year, one of the president's backroom fixers is alleged to have muttered of John Kerry's military service: "By the time we've finished with him people won't know whose side he fought on."

At the time it seemed an implausible boast. But now, not so far-fetched.'

So, once more the BBC attempt to influence the public perception of criticism of Kerry (with a strong implication of nailing Bush to the SwiftVet masthead) when it's acknowledged by Webb himself that this assertion cannot be backed up. He is relying on some of those 'obvious facts' again. Webb could have redeemed himself somewhat by saying that holding that Senator Kerry was on both sides of the conflict in Vietnam is far from a ridiculous viewpoint, but he passes that opportunity in favour of still more crude propaganda.

The irony is that they seem unaware how their sneers and smears are helping President Bush's re-election campaign, even though in this case Webb is pointing out the unconscious help his mockery has given Bush already, not only politically, Webb insists, but to 'make a buck'- a reference to the DVDs which featured his remark.

The attempt to make evil incarnate appear in the image of GWB is truly like the labour of Sisyphus- it's tough, it's futile, and the more you do it and fail the more you are forced to try again.

At Biased-BBC earlier I noted that the BBC and New York Times seemed to have much in common. I wonder if we could say that the BBC too has fallen victim to the Times' patent conspiracy theory meltdown. (an excellent post from The American Thinker at this link)

Update: I just had to insert, as Chrenkoff did in a similar post, this superb analysis of the Chechnyan terrorist situation from Dan Darling of Winds of Change. It really helps bring you up to speed on who is doing what and why in the region.

Cruel Philosophy

More from that Omar Bakri I mentioned yesterday (he probably feels set up but that is no excuse)- this time how British schoolchildren are fair game for terror.

Meanwhile, I'd been wondering how I would apportion blame for the Beslan school massacre. While I was wondering Mark Steyn was writing with typical clarity for The Australian:


'The Muslims have a better case in Chechnya than they do in the West Bank, Kashmir or any of the other troublespots where the Islamic world rubs up against the infidels. But that said, as elsewhere, whatever the theoretical merits of the cause, it's been rotted from within by the Islamist psychosis.'

Live-blogging Bush

I steered around talking about Bush's speech. It was very good, I thought, and more crafted than most I've heard from him. I thought it very skilfully put together. But anyway, enough of what I thought- I can't vote, I just admire the man and think the world can work with him to overcome its challenges.

What I think is that I've found two of the cleverest and most insightful live-blogs that were around last Thursday, and I gather them here for your reading pleasure (and mine).

Liberal Larry, you can imagine, gave a nuanced, Liberal's analysis of what was naturally a one-dimensioned and dogmatic speech.

The VodkaPundit, by contrast, made it a kind of liquid symposium between him and the President. In other words, he played a drinking game with GWB's speech. I tell you though I've seldom if ever read a better personal response to anything.

Both commentaries recommended for outsiders like me, and people without time to read the speech or play it back on video, and those who feel less serious about politics than the pundits are.

Memrible stuff

Ok, today it looks like I'm in a punning mood, but here are two interesting things from the MEMRI website:

Firstly, what will we do about this lot of loons who want to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 in London? I think someone oughtn't to be allowed to live here, Mr Omar Bakri.

Secondly, Amir Taheri addresses an Arab audience on security in Iraq:

'"The truth is that Iraq did not enjoy security under Saddam Hussein either. This is because while there can be no freedom without security, there is also no security without freedom.

"Were the Juburi tribes secure under Saddam when he sent his special units to massacre them as an act of political revenge? How much security did the Shammar tribes enjoy when Saddam seized two-thirds of their land to distribute among his henchmen? And was it to give them security that Saddam transferred thousands of families from Mosul and Kirkuk in the north to central and southern Iraq? And these were all Sunni Muslims who were supposed to provide the principal base of his regime. As for the Shi'ites and the Kurds, the security they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein is symbolized by the mass graves that dot the Iraqi countryside, and the corpses strewn in the streets of Halabja after a chemical attack. And was it because they did not like security that almost four million Iraqis fled into exile during the Baathist rule?"

A Good Standard

A number of good articles in the Weekly Standard at the moment.

Gerard Baker reflects on the cravenness of Michael Howard in attacking Blair over Iraq. He calls it worthy of John Kerry- and he's right. Neither of these two men have realised that the present time is one of those times when a Government of national unity is what the public really want. The public think they're sure there is a challenge to rise to, and they're concerned to see their politicians rise to it (and events seem to confirm this view). To do that it's necessary to recognise some baseline rules, including the one that a real leader must disavow short term gains in the interests of solidarity against gathering threats.

Kerry's attempts to treat national security as a matter of presentation- in his case of presenting his Vietnam credentials hopelessly one-sidedly- and Howard's attempts to play poll-chasing with Blair's justifications for the Iraq war, both trivialise the nature of the debate, and leave people angry.

Both Kerry and Howard want to freeze public opinion in a mode of scepticism about the Iraq war, but the Islamic threat which emanates from the Middle East keeps on morphing. Fortunately its ability to morph from that region is limited by our presence on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the aggravation this involves people are finding it comforting to have our foot poised beside the umbilical cords of terrorism. So Kerry and Howard need to change tack- are morally obliged to change tack- but they are mesmerised by the 'silver bullet' of Stop the War populism.

David Gelernter makes a bold assertion of Bush's place in history. In a skilfully crafted article (i.e. special post-convention delivery) he makes a powerful case that Bush has grasped the force of change that's making history today. [slightly edited]

It was Bismarck who said

"A statesman...must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events, then leap up and grasp the hem of His garment."

Gelernter says this about the President's opponents:

'Reactionary liberals want everything to stay just the same. All trends must continue just as they have been. (Judges must continue to subvert democracy; Congress must continue to create new entitlements.) We must treat the new totalitarians just the same as we once were forced to treat the Soviets--gingerly. Our goal must be not to liberate their victims, not to defeat and disarm their military machines, but to arrange détente with their dictators--just as we once did. (Détente with Saddam was French and Russian policy until we screwed things up.) Our antiquated pre-cell phone, pre-microchip laws and regulations must stay just the same (kill the Patriot Act!), and we must sit still and wait politely for the next terrorist outrage, just as we always have.'

Truth and Russia

I'm sure most of us were steeled to find out the facts about the violent conclusion to the hostages situation in an Ossetian school. The tragedy seemed inevitable, and although there were pictures of a number of children milling around outside the school compound there were never enough of them to make me really optimistic. One crucial thing that the BBC to their credit reports bluntly- nine of the terrorists (I'll call them that) were reportedly Arabs.

Unfortunately, those Russian dolls that are so available to tourists have a prophetic quality about them. Just when you think you've arrived at the real thing you shake it and realise there's another reality concealed beneath. Russia (and district- a 'difficult' thing to define) may have changed a lot since 1989, but unfortunately the culture where life is clumsily lost runs very deep. That's sad for us all as we have to watch little moppets suffer at the hands of self-proclaimed martyrs.

Update (10pm BST): I thought it would happen that the BBC report would be updated to indicate a growing knowledge of the casualties involved. When I posted it said 'at least 150' killed. Now it says 200- and leads us to expect it will need to be updated again.

The Command Post has some more telling details. Maybe I should forget about any clumsiness on the part of the authorities considering the nature of the injuries.

Taking Stock of al-Sadr

After al-Sadr's withdrawal from Najaf, the Coalition forces and Iraqi forces have been taking stock of what the young criminal got up to while he organised a sadistic three week party in what he no doubt considers his father's house- the Imam Ali Mosque.

The American Thinker reports from sources describing the corpses that resulted from a killing spree Sadr and chums embarked on amongst local people while holed-up there. There are mixed reports of up to 200 deaths and foul methods of torture used before or during execution.


IraqtheModel reported some of these things at the time of the uprising (I wish you luck in finding them, but I distinctly recall being shocked while reading about them there), when there was virtual silence about them in the media here.

What this highlights is the kind of man Sadr is- a spoilt brat who takes pleasure in bestial killing in enforcing his will. Although the numbers of his victims may be unclear, his thuggishness is not. He reminds me of a religious version of Uday Hussein- and when you think about it both had powerful fathers on different sides of a traumatised society.

These are not the kind of people the US or the West can allow to dominate in Iraq. Like Uday Hussein, there's little indication that al-Sadr has popular support, and who could blame the people for that? What I hope these reports will help do is continue to discredit al-Sadr in Iraq and in the media. I'd be very sanguine should he meet with an accident, happier still to see him appear in a dock, but it's enough if people like al-Sadr are excluded from significant positions in Iraq's future.

Cribbing from a man of letters.

Yes, once again I'm reduced to lifting bits for Mark Steyn's letters page that are especially fine.

Once again I find a viewpoint I've expressed here expressed there, and I'm led to think once again that a drinks party with Steyn and co. would be a perfect night out.

'If Kerry implodes - as I predict he will - the opportunity to truly put Vietnam behind us will finally be available. Not just the war, but the 30 plus years of liberal elites arrogantly claiming that they were "right" about Vietnam and the concomitant cancerous effect the perpetuation of that myth has upon our national security and political discourse. I few days ago I watched the John O'Neill/John Kerry debate on Dick Cavett in 1971. Two things stood out; First, Kerry clearly did not view communism as a worse outcome for South Vietnam (he hasn't changed). Second, he claimed that our pullout would not result in a bloodbath of innocent civilians in Southeast Asia, as O'Neill rightly predicted (Kerry cavalierly admitted that there may be several thousand "political assassinations" of South Vietnamese officials after we pulled out, but that that would be no big deal in his opinion in light of how oppressive he found the South Vietnamese to be).

...

We can no longer ignore the fact that Kerry and people of his anti-war ilk favored and articulated an approach to dealing with Vietnam (using virtually any means, however repugnant, available to them) that resulted in the death of millions of innocents, the spread of communism, the rise of self-doubt and self-loathing in our foreign policy and military institutions as well as the body politic, and a cultural decline in this country that endangers our greatness.'

-Jim Arabia, San Diego, California

Update: Powerline have a really good take on why Vietnam isn't put to rest in Kerry's candidacy (aside from the fact that Kerry lit the blue touchpaper himself).

Zell's Zinger

It was one heck of a speech- best if you get to see it on video, but powerful on the written page.

The BBC trashed it as 'nasty', but they've never seen all the many expressions of Democratic 'righteous anger' against Bush- such as that from Al Gore- as 'nasty', so I don't see why they should start now with Miller's indignation against Kerry.

As a Brit I'm just glad that there are people in the US like Zell Miller prepared to stand up aganst the odds and put their experience and their hearts into dealing with the problems facing the West.

If Zell was motivated by anger at the past, as he hinted, that's a lot better than looking for future political/monetary advantage- though whether a man in his early 70's can be all that concerned about his future career is debatable. Ask Bobby. Or to be fair, Rummy.

All in all I can't think of a better person to have been endorsing Bush last night.

The BBC sneered that he looked bad compared to Barak Obama's speech. Oh really? If it was Barak endorsing Bush the only questions on the lips of journalists would have been how much he was paid or what he would be getting. The fact that it seems absurd to ask that question of Miller speaks volumes for how good it was to have him there. He didn't renege on his Democratic roots; he just endorsed Bush (which is of course, really nasty).

The BBC later reported what will doubtless be the standard Democrat line, that it was "a night of angry old men". That's not really so clever coming from the camp of the botoxified Brahmin in his sixties running on the strength of his 'long political experience' and his time in Vietnam.

Update: Michael Barone has an excellent and thoughtful take on why Miller's (but also Cheney's) speech hit the mark. If it seems like it was o.t.t. to you, this is a good one to read.

Wretchard's Great Lines.

Admittedly they're not all Wretchard's, but he certainly has some profound and true words to say regarding the current wave of terror that's battering the psyches of both the Russian and the French peoples.

I've only scratched the surface of the French existentialists, but Wretchard's quote from Camus helps me appreciate why people delve deeper:

"on the day when crime dons the apparel of innocence -- through a curious transposition peculiar to our times -- it is innocence that is called upon to justify itself."

Or, as Wretchard puts it, 'tranferrence of guilt is terrorism's greatest lie'.

Going from the negative to the positive, he says 'Civilization cannot hang back but must step forward, if not for love then for survival.'

These are great lines, worth mulling over.

At the sharp end, meanwhile, here's the latest from the BBC on the Russian crisis and the French hostage situation. Listening to Caroline Hawley earlier it sounded as if the BBC were gearing up to ask why the French were so much better at dealing with terrorism. The only response I could think of was 'we'll see'.

New Links- as the Frenchman does the rounds.

I've put a lot of new links in the sidebar- and taken a couple out which seem to be obsolete (they'll go straight back if matters alter).

One of them is No Pasaran, stomping ground of the inimitable W who previously highlighted the merde in France. As you can imagine it's a good place for a forthright look at the French hostage crisis.

The BBC are reporting Barnier's vist to Al Jazeera in Qatar- which says much of what you need to know about the contacts Al Jazeera fosters. They're also reporting the Pope's intervention, so it can be seen that all the world and his wife are butting in on the situation. I don't think I've mentioned how sickening it is when so much energy can be expended for the sake of two journalists (much as I wish their safety), but so little ado was made for the 12 Nepalese that were murdered recently. Still, I suppose the same could be said about the traumas of Sudan- maybe the rebels in Darfur need to get hold of a couple of French journalists (not that I'd wish their harm).

Oil Glut?

Fascinating news from Mexico which reaches me via the indispensible American Thinker. Apparently an oil company has discovered reserves there which rival some of the largest in the world. Take that, Islamofascist strategists.

Minor bias?

Public opinion rests like an unbroken egg on a kitchen work surface- tilt the surface just a little and you can watch the egg slide and ultimately break.

That's what politicians try to do, and the media are in an irresistible position to join in.

Those are the premises I start with when I look for media bias.

This BBC information piece has been edited as many times as you could conceive of- earlier it juxtaposed Arnie's praise for Bush's singlemindedness with the claim that Bush had contradicted himself over winning the war on terror. Currently it majors on arrests outside the RNC, and the accompanying 'tense atmosphere'. In either case it sows a real doubt in the mind.

[I'm re-reading it, later on, and it has really cleaned up quite a bit. It now strikes me as not unbalanced, although there are little tweaks of weirdness and repetition by which the BBC often means to unsettle or turn-off readers. This raises an interesting point: the online media is more like television that it is like the print media. How many tens of thousands may have read the earlier versions? Yet what we have been left with is better than what many/most people will have read- rather like the way TV news sometimes cleans up a story as they go from the early morning hours to peak-time.]

The BBC opinion piece I pointed out earlier may seem friendly enough, but in fact it highlights the stereoptyped Arnie over the real one. It highlights the stage management of the Republicans over their message, and it makes the RNC look like a simple PR exercise. Of course there are elements of that in all political campaigning- but there's a trade-off between looking good and being good. I think the Republicans would readily admit there is no point looking good if you can't be good when it counts, yet this aspect of their platform is dismissed as window dressing.

By way of contrast, here is a news piece about John Edwards' speech in July. There's only one negative comment in its entirety, and even that is very much of the 'that was the bad news, here is the good' variety.

Update: Here's another article - I think, on balance- to add to the BBC's negativity cache, this time about Arnold and co., that displays an obsession with 'packaging' and an interesting definition of 'moderate'.

Sour taste to BBC's Convention cocktail.

I'm going to try and put together a post on BBC bias against the Republican convention- assuming I continue to detect it- at BiasedBBC.

In the meantime a couple of observations.

Even Kos thought that Rudi's speech was the highlight of last night's events, yet the BBC never featured it prominently- and certainly never pinpointed any of the good lines. They preferred to concentrate on John McCain because of the political intrigue (negative) they could squeeze from it.

One picture of Guiliani came in this most slanted of opinion pieces from Rob Watson. Guiliani is introduced through a prism of negativity-

'They came here to see the other side get bashed, and tonight John Kerry got a good bashing.
And he got that bashing from a man seen as a moderate Republican, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani.'.

Although the excellent convention bloggers at Powerline lend that analysis some modest support, they make it clear that was only a part of Rudi's charm, and a much more rational critique than 'bashing' could ever be (note the threefold repetition in the BBC article).

This was a good speech , with much that was moderate about it in the best sense, which deserved better than it got from the BBC.

Franco-Crawling

I know I'm following the Instapundit in linking to the Belmont Club's commentary on the French crusade to find someone to bribe in the Middle East who will then release their journalists, but I did post on this earlier. Wretchard shines an interesting sidelight on the BBC's coverage.

My money's still on the French being able to find a way out of this: the Egyptians and co. have got to be able to show that their friendship is worth something. Another thing is that watching the videotape of the Frenchmen expressing their wish for their country to back down on the question of headscarves, I was surprised how relaxed they seemed, as though they were fairly sure of their position as political pawns. On the other hand, the group apparently holding them has a grisly record. I hope I'm right for their sakes.

I was very interested to read Prime Minister Allawi's comments- very much saying the kind of thing we can't say at this moment. This will be a part of the diplomatic dance too.

The J.P. has an editorial on the subject which says effectively that solidarity among the French is admirable, but where's their solidarity with all countries facing terrorism? Quite a pointed message, coming today.

Here's another tragedy I should have mentioned- one which doesn't make the French hostages prospects look any better.

Move Along Folks, nothing to see here.

BBC covers MTV awards, and it's the kind of article I scan for names I might feel the need to have heard of at some future point. It's oh so forgettable, and in case we might seek compensation by looking for signs of controversy, Auntie helpfully concludes:

'Last year's MTV Awards attracted controversy after Madonna and Britney Spears shared a kiss onstage - however this year's show was broadcast with a time delay of several seconds to avoid further controversy.'

So there, young man! That'll teach you to go looking for titbits where you oughtn't!

But woah there, Beeboids, for heark! Do I hear the mirthful sound of Kerrys being booed?

Update: Bush daughters got booed too, but since they sensibly taped their piece in advance it was less noticeable. Still, I thought the Kerrys were supposed to be the cool ones?

Boris's Bunk

Mumbling MP and uber-pundit Boris Johnson, has, surprise, surprise, written a book. Well, a pot-boiler actually- which Boris is hawking to the public using his long connection with the high-circulation Daily Telegraph, where an extract appeared today.

What can I say from the extract?

It's so Boris you'll never be able to tell which character is talking. The two characters featured significantly are the Terrorist (clever Boris) and the President (bumbling Boris). The terrorist has to come from Wales because while Boris is happy with depicting a British person embroiled in Islamofascism, he can't stretch culturally to depicting the typical terrorist from Saudi or Egypt. The President meanwhile reminded me of Boris's own self-parody on HIGNFY, with a Texan accent.

Perhaps I'm out of condition when it comes to reading our latter-day pulp fiction, but I kind of considered that an author should make the effort to take us beyond his own mannerisms and narrow experiences, and into the world beyond. The excerpt I read sounded for all the world like the author was a bit too lazy to take me anywhere but Parody-Central.

Or maybe it's just that I'm out of charity because Boris has been doing idiotic things like supporting Gilligan and advocating Blair's 'impeachment'.