Israel: A law abiding society that cares about human rights. Why should this require discussion? It's obvious, surely?

Never success; only respite.

I had to comment on this report by Paul Reynolds. Readers may know I'm not fond of Paul, because he usually manages to smuggle into his reporting things that are purely opinionated and cynically destructive.

There're a couple of things here. First of all he calls the early handover of power to Iraqis 'a rare propaganda coup'. Since it was Reynolds who has spent the last few months doubting the possiblity of handing over power, you'd think he might recognise that this could be part of a successful mission and not merely propaganda- but no.

Secondly, he has a problem with the handover taking place at a time which coincides with the G8 summit. He says 'some bright spark' must have thought it up. I'd have thought it was stating the politically obvious that when you need support from the world community you emphasise your good intentions at the maximal time. In any case I'm sure this was not the only thing considered.

He also finds time to say 'the hurried nature of the move is an indication by itself that not all is well in the state of Iraq.'. Well, we would never have gone there if the garden had been rosy, now, would we? The idea that we wouldn't in some sense have to play nip and tuck with reactionaries or terrorists in Iraq would falsify part of the case for war- and you can bet Reynolds would be pointing that out now if things were totally calm.

It's not until half way down the article that Reynolds deigns to mention that 'There is also one other benefit. The sudden move could disrupt whatever plans the insurgents have to mark the 30 June themselves'. Sorry Paul, but this was not a side effect, it was likely the prime motivation behind the move. No one likes to get bombed on their special day. You just can't handle the fact that your enemy the Bush administration (or perhaps- and I'm trying not to follow Reynolds and discount them- the fledging Iraqi Government) has proved itself so shrewd on this occasion.

The rest of the article sounds more reasonable, but is still questionable. He says, in a tone which makes the Green Zone sound like the Kremlin of times past, 'propaganda coups tend not to last unless they are based on fundamentals'.

Now I think it's clear we're dealing with a diehard opponent of the war. When he says 'fundamentals' he's drawing us all back to the beginning of the war and saying 'the fundamentals were wrong- so they still are'. All the problems we face now you could trace back to Reynolds' beliefs at the beginning: that Saddam had a greater legitimacy than any government that could be installed by US intervention.

That's just my supposition, but it's the only way I can understand his negativism in the face of what would seem to be success for the coalition in Iraq.

I Know They're Wrong, part 1.

I was just thinking about the report by the Glasgow Media Group claiming pro-Israel bias at the BBC and reflecting on how my views on media (specifically BBC) bias have developed as the months have passed since I started to take it seriously.

At first I was brashly confident, relying on a store of strong impressions and occasionally definitive insight gained over more than a decade of mild distrust of the Beeb. Then I went through a phase of panicky certainty, as I began to unfold more of the issues, admit some errors on my part, but cling successfully to aforementioned moments of definitiveness.

Now I emerge to a place where I can look the Glasgow Media Group in the eye, stick out a tongue and say (but only after putting the tongue back in) 'I know you're wrong'.

Thankfully, the G.M.G. provided links from their summary of their report to extracts from their much later published book, so we can check out their approach and prove what we 'know'.

I'll make a start here with the first of seven 'major findings'. The G.M.G. claim that Israelis get the lion's share of interviews with the Beeb- and support it statistically. They show that Palestinians get far fewer interviews- and this is supposed to indicate bias against them.

Personally I have never dwelt much on the number of interviews accorded the two parties. Our sympathies are not dictated by the number of faces we see from one side or the other, but by the character of the interviews, frequently dependent on lede reports and intros. Too often I have seen Israelis summoned like naughty children to face a schoolmarmish journalist.

It can often be that media people summon those they disagree with for interviews (think of Jeremy Paxman)- it makes for more sparks and better TV, as well as offering a kind of figleaf of statistical imbalance in favour of their bogeymen that is so naively accepted by the G.M.G..

As for the point they make that American politicians supportive of Israel are often interviewed, I would respond by saying that we often distrust American politicians, and that one of the best ways of undermining Israel is to have powerful Americans defending Israeli actions from a great distance on British TV. Besides, my question is always 'why not a British politician defending Israeli actions from a distance on British TV?' Is it that they know the British people, having experience of terrorism at home, will respond too well to a forthright authentic British voiced raised in Israel's defence?

Even the direct quote this excerpt cites, from ITV, indicates how leaden and inept their analysis is. They italicise most strangely:

'The presence in Jerusalem of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is further evidence that for now it's the Israelis who have the world's sympathy.'

Didn't they notice the construction 'for now'? Meaning that such sympathy was a temporary phenomenon; meaning the exception rather than the rule. They seem to prove the falseness of their own case there and then in their own publicity.

I Get Angry About Language, again.

The BBC continually revert to their default idiocy, like a rubber band that's only mildly stretched by the forces operating on it. No matter what criticism comes their way they return to the default- and the default amounts to support of terrorists against the West.

Consider for instance this passage from a BBC report on Zarkawi's bunch of cockroaches releasing safely the latest props in their Islamic fascist theatre: three Turkish hostages, heads attached. According to the Beeb 'Correspondents say Iraqi kidnappers are trying to deflect criticism from Muslim countries by sparing those of the same faith wherever possible.'

The above sentence is fatuous, obsequious and wrong.

For a start these terrorists are part of the movement that mercilessly kills Muslims in Iraq. They are concerned about propaganda for their cause, but they don't care about Muslims (at least not the 'wrong' sort of Muslim).

Secondly, the word 'sparing' is hopelessly inappropriate. It implies mercy, but we know that these terrorists don't have any mercy in them. They understand expediency and that is all.

Finally, the phrase 'wherever possible' is a disgrace, implying that there is a force of necessity behind the actions of the terrorists. What is 'possible' is that they could leave Iraq, commit suicide (sans bomb), maybe even join a political movement somewhere with due remorse for their actions. All these things are 'possible' though not likely, but 'sparing' victims is not a 'possibility', it's a moral imperative.

There is another point arising from this article. The BBC report the statement of the terrorists describing why they released the hostages. It might be a matter of debate whether they should do this, but I don't think they should. With every act of terror these men are trying to make a political point, because they know that is their only way to influence actions of the West that affect their ambitions (such as, in this case, elections). I don't think the BBC should mention their 'reasoning', because that is the motivation for their acts of terror: to impose their reasoning on ours and to overcome us thereby.

They want us in terror of their zeal and filled with contempt for our own authorities. That's the message they're trying to send, the impression they're trying to foist on us- and the BBC is passing it on faithfully.

Update: Marc at USS Neverdock makes a comparison between the report I highlight and one by Paul Reynolds. Incidentally, the only defence I could offer for the BBC's phrasing is if you can separate the kidnapping terrorists from the shooting kind, or even bombing kind- but you can't.

A great review for Michael Moore (I think Michael Moore's a kind of genius: only he could inspire such good work from leading journalist-critics)-

Says Matt Labash: 'I do not trash Fahrenheit 9/11 because it's a piece of antiwar propaganda. I trash Fahrenheit 9/11 because it's an offal-laden piece of junk... Moore doesn't make art, he makes fudge'

Ironies Here.

The BBC give a high place to an item about two reports alleging false accounting in the CPA's management of oil revenues in Iraq. The sources for these reports? The anti-war Lib-dems and Christian Aid.
The Beeb report says that the reports have not been released yet, though in fact the Christian Aid one seems to be available at their website.

Now, to check reality: have the Lib-Dems any involvement other than as arm-chair critics over Iraq? Have Christian Aid anything to offer other than some kind of Rowan Williams boilerplate? (I merely point out that so far neither the Church nor the Lib dems are known for saying anything about Iraq except that the war to overthrow that most corrupt man, Saddam Hussein, was illegal. Incidentally, Christian Aid appear only to operate in Kurdish Northern Iraq.)

The Lib Dems allege 'there is a shortfall of up to $3.7bn (£2.03bn) between the amount of oil revenue earned and the money paid into the DFI by the CPA.' According to the Lib Dems 'research by the Lib Dems suggests oil revenues stand between $12.2bn (£6.7bn) and $14.5bn (£7.96bn)'- which is greater than the figures from the CPA.

Meanwhile, Christian Aid reiterate the point, and the BBC quote them saying the Coalition's financial statements have been 'woefully inadequate'- but this quote from their introduction to the report is revealing:

''What has the coalition got to hide by not making such information available for Iraq's own money? Is it putting the cash to the best use for the people of Iraq? Or is it still rewarding US companies with lucrative contracts?' said Ms Collinson' [Christian Aid's 'head of policy']

Do they have the faintest clue what they are talking about? In a situation where oil has been a primary target of saboteurs and insurgents, they have the temerity to suggest that they know better than the CPA what the oil revenues are? Not a mention of 'sabotage' in the Beeb report, which is pathetic when in general they're so keen to talk about insecurity in Iraq (it's their job to question sources). Have any of them bothered to check out the major infrastructural and living standards improvements going on in Iraq, and asked themselves whether they would have been possible under fraudulent authorities? No, they wouldn't have, because they didn't ask similarly straightforward questions when people were dying for lack of resources in Iraq yet Saddam's oil scheme was increasing continually.

Ah, but that's not the only irony. The irony is that you can have months of investigations and revelations about real corruption on a massive scale concerning Oil-for-Food and it gets coverage that is so muted and circumscribed as to be null, yet when two poxy drivel-mongers cry 'foul', it goes straight to the top of the headlines- and stays there.

(No mention of their report on the LibDem website, which may be out later in the week)

Walking into a punch- BBC style.

I'm a big fan of Mark Steyn. There's no-one in the media world I agree with more and admire so much, or who makes me laugh the way Steyn does. He styles himself a 'One-Man Global Content Provider', which is very bold but something I have come to consider not unreasonable- like so much else that he says.

Steyn is one of the (many) reasons I consider the BBC irredeemably biased for an organisation that styles itself 'impartial'. If you think about it Steyn's claim is actually far more modest than the BBC's. But the reason Steyn makes me feel the BBC are biased is that he is often attacked and labelled a right-wing hack(via SteynOnline), a doyen of populist exaggeration, which is so funny since again and again I find that the BBC report in terms diametrically opposed to Steyn's. This means that if Steyn is 'rightwing' as so many claim he is, the BBC must be 'leftwing', no?

And now I come to my examples.

Recently the BBC's Matt Frei's been reporting on an unwelcomed visit by President Bush to Ireland- but Steyn has anticipated this turn of events in his reflections on Ronald Reagan. (second story down).

-Frei says: 'The love affair between the United States and Ireland dates back to the early waves of immigration and continues to be reinforced by a mixture of shared values, folklore and nostalgia.'

Steyn says: '... the lion’s share of green cards in the annual lottery are reserved for the Irish, thanks to an artful wheeze by Ted Kennedy. Plus, if you fly there from Shannon, you get to pre-clear US immigration, a privilege extended to no other country apart from Canada. With Canada, there are compelling economic reasons for facilitating cross-border traffic. With Ireland, it’s pure sentimentality – and largely unreciprocated at that.'

-Frei says: 'St. Patrick's Day - religiously observed as a national holiday in the US - compels tens of thousands of Americans to drink green beer once a year, march to bagpipes or buy plastic shamrocks.'

Steyn says: 'Shamrock-flavoured blather is not what it once was in North America, and St Patrick’s Day has never really recovered from the “queering of the green” – the battle by Irish gays and lesbians to march as such in the parade, which has led either to its cancellation (Boston), its subversion by an alternative “inclusive” parade (New York), or its general fading as a demonstration of political muscle.'

-Frei says: 'There's the ancestral dimension. Ronald Reagan, whose forefathers were Irish Presbyterians, took Nancy to sip Guinness in a pub near their place of birth.'

Steyn says: 'Mr Reagan’s death reminds us that Bush is not the first President to be unloved in Europe.'

-While Frei luxuriates in all the details of the Irish opposition to Bush, Steyn sums it up by saying 'Mr Bush is about to touch down on the Emerald Isle for the US-EU summit, a huge waste of everyone’s time except insofar, as one Dubliner wrote to me, as it enables Dubya to be arrested and tried for war crimes at the Hague.'

But the fundamental difference between Frei and Steyn is that while Steyn makes the argument of a divergent trend between the US and Europe, Frei specifically picks out Bush as the divergent party. Steyn talks history, sociology, trends; Frei talks emotion, flashpoint, mood- and political blame.

One final contrast:

-Frei says: 'More recently there were the scenes of near hysteria and jubilation that greeted Bill Clinton on his numerous visits to the Emerald Isle.

Northern Ireland was a hot political topic during his presidency and one in which he became personally involved.'

Steyn says (reviewing Clinton's book) that Clinton would have done better to 'Shoot for more of 'The shaft of light from the dying sun through the Oval Office window caught the swell of her bosom as she slid the extra-large pepperoni across the desk. I knew it was wrong. I'd penciled in that evening for bringing peace to Northern Ireland, but what the hell, the two sides of that troubled island's sectarian conflict were separated by as deep a divide as the plunging cleavage now beckoning from her low-cut angora sweater. Ulster could wait.' " '

In case anyone thinks that Steyn is beyond the pale here, remember that Clinton did indeed interchange important meetings with international figures with important meetings with full-figured interns. Fact. Since the shallowness of the peace in Northern Ireland seems to be a great problem, isn't it worth asking (and continuing to ask, until we get a response) whether such issues merited more than the periods when Clinton's mind was not on his latest conquest or the scandal generated thereby?

Clearly Matt Frei will never even contemplate such questions. Does that make him biased?

Quite a lot to blog, in fact.

I'll start with DumbJon. This guy is great and you should read him. He's vehement about things other leave alone- his latest post gives you a classic insight into the UK's institutional culture plus our hang-ups. He often wallops the BBC- need I say more?

Meanwhile, this is quite a lady- she has an impressive string of men to her credit and they include Amir Taheri, who has written a must-read article ('read it all' in the words of the Instapundit) based on a recent visit to Iraq. It's like reading an extended post from IraqTheModel only with a bit more gravitas. Loads of juicy, juicy facts, insights and quotes.

Then, unusually, Melanie Phillips has been putting some weekend entries into her diary. First there is the Washington Times reporting the emergence of more chemical weapons in Iraq. Then news that the New York Times has performed a summersault on Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda by publishing a report about ongoing efforts by Saddam to ally with groups, including Al Qaeda, who opposed the rulers of Saudi Arabia. A pan-arab caliphate, anyone?

Finally, from LGF a link to Andrew Mcarthy at NRO who is trying to burst open that bubble of stale hot air that the words 'Abu' and 'Ghraib' have burped up. Charles couldn't find a quote that he felt helped sum it up (at least from where he was standing). I think I can, because amidst all the palaver Mcarthy brings us back to procedure. This is so sane it's the quote that counts for me:

'There is, of course, a straightforward way to find out what was actually done here, and it is precisely the way the administration appears to be proceeding: zealously prosecute the cases. The soldiers thus far charged, for the most part, appear to be claiming, unsurprisingly, that they were "just following orders." That claim will be tried in court-martial proceedings, meaning each soldier making it will have to establish who supposedly gave him such commands, at which point the spotlight will focus on that official, who will either deny it, admit it, or admit it and say he was acting on someone else's orders, at which point the process moves upward. That is how investigations routinely proceed.'

All of which reminds me that, in life's race, if you jump the gun too often you get disqualified.

Volker Checks In.

The man hired to investigate UNscam 'says he has uncovered "serious problems" with the program.'- via Friends of Saddam and Fox News. When you consider what generally happens in enquiries this degree of certainty seems significant.

M. Moore- Daahling of the BBC.

My fellow B-BBC contributor Andrew Bowman and I had an email exchange (incidentally, I'm having serious technical problems on the email front at the moment) a few weeks ago about the uncritical reception the BBC had offered to the Moore circus, and how Moore was a latter-day Reifenstahl etc etc.

The Beeb have been positively gleeful, realising that Moore represents the model of a straight talking leftie to make opposition to GWB look truehearted- an activity for the common man. Somehow Kerry can't quite bring that off.

Today they claimed breathlessly, 'Michael Moore's award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has opened to rave reviews - but not among supporters of President George Bush.'

Now, someone needs to get a grip at the Beeb and realise that you do not have to be a supporter of GWB to dislike, even hate, and criticise Fahrenheit 9/11. Off the top of my head I can think of Roger Simon, Christopher Hitchens and Jeff Jarvis who have slated Moore and his work. Now, I suppose this is very web orientated, but these people are relatively significant, especially Hitchens. They are in many ways traditional democrats, who certainly may not be supporting Bush at the polls in November (Jarvis certainly doesn't intend to).

Both Hitchens and Jarvis expend great energy trying to nail Moore- and few could argue they fail to do so.

The truth about Moore is that only a diehard opponent of GWB would give his propaganda any kind of credibility- so the Beeb have got it backwards as usual. The real story is that senior Democrats have, cynically, effectively endorsed what is basically a propaganda film- but that's a perspective that won't come within a million miles of the BBC.
(I have something similar- but different- posted at B-BBC)

At Every Opportunity I spread the word that the BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign Office- which seems to me to be asking for trouble when that division of the BBC is essential in providing the backbone for its world coverage.

However, I had a 'duh!' moment this evening when I read on the excellent and newly linked blog (sitting comfortably between Melanie Phillips and Stephen Pollard in the 'Politics' section to your right) 'EU Referendum' that the BBC World Service has benefitted from funding from the EU of substantial sums rising to over 1 million pounds this year. That's not to mention further grants to other parts of the Beeb. Oh, and that's before I come to the loans from the European Investment Bank of over £90 million, which must be very comforting to have in hand against the backdrop of all this digital television mallarkey. I'm not sure what all the ramifications might be, but this seems a story saying which political future the BBC have placed their bets on. Worth bearing in mind.

I Have Another Site!

Readers of this blog will realise that though I describe it as 'Beeb-bash based' and about 'politics and poetry', only two of those three appear realistic (I hope no one accuses me of not bashing the Beeb, and politics is fairly much anything where you have a strong opinion). To make up for the lack of poetry I've created 'WritingHoarsely' (yes I know you can't write 'hoarsely' but it's, like, a metaphor.) At the moment there's just one short story I wrote over a year ago, but you're welcome to go and take a look.

Unscam update:

William Safire is still on the case, and from the sound of his source- 'You won't believe the grease being paid.'- it's a scam that however unexciting to some and unwelcome to others will keep on being raised (via Friends of Saddam). Certainly Safire seems dedicated enough.

In fact even the BBC have added a recent report to mark the occasion when US oil companies have been receiving subpoenas. It's so much easier to report when the potential bad guys are flagships of US capitalism, isn't it? A spoonful of sugar helping the medicine go down.

'Anonymous' and the Clerical Error

When you find one report promulgating the notion that the Bush administration misled the public by understating the number of terrorist incidents last year, and one immediately beside it saying that the US is losing the War on Terror, you have to think that's a remarkable coincidence; but in the way that the BBC website usually seems to bend space and time two remarkably complementary stories occupied the same section of their website simultaneously.

When the BBC say that 'The Bush administration seized on the original report [recording a reduction in numbers of attacks] as proof that its "war on terror" was succeeding.' is there not a faint stench of subjectivity in that judgement? That's not to mention the double quote-marks and the possessive 'its', as though the WoT only belonged in the Bush administration's imagination. Meanwhile, at no point do we get the cohesive explanation offered by CNN:

'John Brennan, director of the federal Terrorist Threat Integration Center, said a database error caused his agency to provide incomplete statistics to the CIA. The CIA then passed those incomplete numbers along to the State Department.

Brennan said he took responsibility for the error, but "Anyone who might assert that our numbers were intentionally skewed is mistaken." '

As I've already pointed out, it's a small step from this story to the one about the anonymous author who's written a book condemning the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. In the US context this is conveniently close to the furore over the 9/11 commission.

The BBC graciously report it with the qualification that 'The 309-page Imperial Hubris is the latest book to attack the Bush administration in an election year - many written by former officials with an axe to grind.' (link added by me)- but this is the only qualification, and it actually enhances the fact that the book is 'the work of an official with long years of counter-terrorism experience, who is still active in the US intelligence community.' . And, by the way, I did not notice the BBC describing any of the books they might have been referring to as written by people 'with an axe to grind' at the time they were published. Richard Clarke with an 'axe to grind'? Ssshurely not!

It's bizarre and laughable in the article that we find out so much about a man supposedly 'anonymous'. His identity, like that of the unfortunate Dr David Kelly in the UK, cannot be felt worth hiding if this much is let out into the public domain. Having found some celebrated but retired names being shot down in the flames of their obvious politicisation or self-interest, the opponents of President Bush have resorted to a current intelligence operative to fireproof their case, they just can't name him- although I bet they know who he banks with. So, we're left with plenty of context but no substance, nothing to scrutinise because we don't know- as per usual- where he lives, who he knows, who he drinks with etc etc. What are we supposed to say: 'oh how clever, that's really done it now', or, nore likely, 'another damn-fool gimmick further undermining the credibility of Bush's critics'?

The BBC's account includes lavish quoting from the book, and speculation from newspapers that have had contact with the author, including the Guardian and the Washington Times. Now how often do the opinions of newspapers get such coverage on the BBC website? Often they dismiss print journalists as 'hacks', as was the case with Paul Reynolds' description of Christopher Hitchens recently. This time we get to know what the Guardian thinks, what the Times thinks, what 'Anonymous' thinks- including the big joke, that Al Qaeda are considering a strike on the US to keep Bush in power.

Ha ha.

Media News Round-up.

The new BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, has taken over and announced a shake-up, which has got to be good news if it means that criticising the Beeb will be less like shooting fish in a barrel. Also, the Telegraph has been sold to the Barclay brothers, which hopefully ends its long period spent in limbo and should make for a better paper in the coming months.

Meanwhile, anyone who has criticised Michael Moore (and there have been many) over his latest film Fahrenheit 9/11 will be wishing they'd held back until they read Christpher Hitchens' disembowelment of Moore's bloated media corpse. Roger Simon has some observations to add comparing one media monster (Moore) with another (Clinton, whose book has by now hit the streets of America like a splodge of lumpy porridge).

By the way, if you want a real news round up, this time about Iraq, try Arthur Chrenkoff. Such a fascinating read. (Thanks to Instapundit for 3 of 5 links).

Also by the way, a new and well-informed blog has started to focus on the EU Referendum over the constitution. I was particularly interested (and gratified) by this post, which echoes a recent post of mine about the BBC's coverage of the constitution- in fact it examines the same Q & A non-information article that annoyed me quite a bit. (via Samizdata)

Somehow I think that Mr Blair's little soundbyte about 'myths' and 'realities' concerning the constitution is going to acquire teeth and bite him.

Blog Quality and Big Ideas

Although you can easily make the argument that much of what appears in blogs is poorly written, poorly researched, and shallow, it's also true that for developing ideas, as well as letting descriptive/imaginative powers run loose, the internet can be quite spectacular.

Just recently Wretchard of the Belmont Club has hit a purple patch: some great thoughts encompassing great spans of time and space. Some might describe it as rambling; others as a 'bit of a stretch' for the imagination, but I'm just glad he does it because I'd never have the guts. The negative responses (I'm guessing) would be more likely from Europeans, since Wretchard is American and since we Euros tend to look down on people talking with an eye to the cosmic.

I just wanted to share a couple of Wretchard's quotes, relating to the Euro-project that's been thrust forward into the limelight by the recent elections (numbers represent links to specific posts).

1) 'The Third World in general and the Islamic World in particular have burst their bounds; they can no longer be herded into the decrepit and threadbare tent of the United Nations; the Kyoto climate agreement; the International Criminal Court or any of Potemkin treaties woven by the European Union.'

2) 'The real significance of the Osama's attacks on America to future historians may be that it marked the end of the transnational project of a politically correct world order; delineated the final boundary of the European tradition of Marxist thought and created the first post-post-colonial Western ideology. The Global War on Terror is in certain respects spectacularly ill-named. Its principal victim has not been the Al Qaeda network but the old order. The notion of the centrality of the United Nations; the idea that terrorism is a law enforcement problem; the idea that history is an irreversible march toward a Green-Left future are projects as cold beneath the earth as the Taliban's armies. If the European Union as envisioned by France finally dies; it will mark its departure, however long it may linger, from the time Mohammed Atta's aircraft struck the Towers.'

Kind of puts into perspective the wrangling over the constitution, doesn't it? That seems, well, backward looking when you consider the far greater forces at work. The basic theme, one I think we'll either have to accept or endure in due course, is 'stop picking at you navel, Europe, start looking over your shoulder.'

'Deirdrie' Replies (sooner than I expected):

'For 30 years, as the EU has acquired the organs of a state entity, the argument of British Europhiles to the people has been: who ya gonna believe?

Me or your lyin' eyes? Say what you like about those shifty duplicitous Continentals, but on this issue it's successive British governments that have been shifty and Monsieur du Plicitous who's been admirably straightforward.' -'Deirdrie', aka Mark Steyn

Which is Clearer?

Dear Deirdie,

Although the Beeb took up Mr Blair's challenge to distinguish 'myth' from 'reality' about the EU constitution, as I noted already in my weblog, I was not impressed- it just seemed like they were in denial. Yesterday I read an article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph that seems far clearer. This is a difficult time in my history, and lots of my friends keep muttering dark things about the Euro-sceptic rightwing press. Please help me. Who should I believe?

Yours,
Britain.

I'll probably write a fair bit about the EU constitution: another central issue of the times that no doubt the BBC will get present arse first, so to speak. Here's an initial response:


BBC on EU : 'The show goes on'.

No sooner has Tony Blair on Breakfast with Frostie hailed a battle to allow 'reality' about the EU to be distinguished from 'myth' (obscured, so the story goes, by the narrow europhobic press), the BBC obliges with a helpful Q&A: EU- Myths and Realities.

The overall tone of this report indicates that 'myth'= anything scary about growing EU powers, while 'reality'= everything's right and fairly proper in the EU garden.

So, to each vaguely anxious 'question' about the increase in EU power intrinsic to the constitution the answer is negative.

Asking whether the EU constitution will lead to a 'United States of Europe' (like the US), the response is unequivocally 'no'. If you read the explanation, however, it is clear that while in some areas qualified majority voting is extended (in fact wherever it's not otherwise stated qualified majority voting will be applied)- to immigration for instance- in no cases is it diminished. Thus, the balance described between people wanting more integration and those wanting to preserve national powers is false, since the movement in the Constitution is all one way. Who knows whether it will 'lead to' a USE; what's clear is that it's a step in that direction.

Asking whether having a Foreign Minister means having a common foreign policy the BBC comment with apparent wryness, 'not in the EU'. As the BBC comments, however, without 'agreement' the EU Foreign Minister will be 'powerless'; therefore, unless he or she is an idiot, the Foreign Ministers will spend his/her time weighing and balancing the EU's individual interests to get agreement. From another vantage point this might mean arm-twisting and shoe-horning various national representatives. I was particularly alarmed by the BBC's assumption that the EU were united in their view of the 'Middle East Peace Process'. That may be true, nominally at present, but I would not want under any circumstances to be tied to French foreign policy over Israel.

Coming away from reading the BBC's analysis, I feel that I have had contact with an idealist's vision of how the Constitution will work; one which anticipates nationalistic fears but not the practical concerns (and experiences) on which most fears are grounded.

Anyway, for an example of that apparently hopelessly biased euro-sceptic press, The Times' Financial editor David Smith's EconomicsUK site is a place to bookmark. Currently running an impressive article on intelligent economics-based scepticism, if current trends continue people like him will be a little more critical of the drive for integration than the BBC.

Went Trawling; found stuff:

William Kristol on Kerry's response to the 9/11 Commission:

'This is surely a major moment in the presidential race. John Kerry had, until last week, been running a disciplined general election campaign, carefully suppressing his left-leaning foreign policy instincts, soberly emphasizing his commitment to fighting the war on terror and to seeing through the effort in Iraq. Then he couldn't resist the temptation to jump on the (misleading) press accounts of the (sloppy) 9/11 Commission staff report, in order to assault the Bush administration on the issue of terror links between Saddam and al Qaeda.'

The BBC reporting a big surprise:

'Residents of the Iraqi city of Falluja have disputed an American account of an air attack in which at least 20 people were killed.'

Roger Simon on why he can't agree with Andrew Sullivan's flip-flop towards Kerry:

'My basic reason is so simple and unsophisticated it's embarrassing to have to spell it out, but as I wrote in the comment section of another blog: If John Kerry is elected in November, it will be interpreted by the world as such a repudiation of the WoT it will make the electoral defeat in Spain seem like a student council defeat in Iowa.'

For what it's worth I think that Bush is doing well on just about everything. What often looks careless or reckless, lazy or feckless, in the President's management, seems to turn out better than you imagine. The bombing in Fallujah, for instance, is indication that the US is not frightened to intervene destructively in that city, and that allowing certain opponents to congregate in apparent safety there may bring opportunities to root them out. With all those friends in Fallujah it does seem as though Zarqawi and his ilk are suspiciously 'at home' in Iraq.

The 9/11 Commission, with its apparent (and in reality very ambiguous) thumbs down for Bush's justifications for the war in Iraq, smokes out Kerry's agenda and allows convincing, detailed evidence to be circulated that refutes the sceptics over Iraq-Al Qaeda links. Of course you don't find such information on the BBC, but then that sidelines a news organisation that will not deal with news which disagrees with them- which is good news, in a way.

Bursting the Bubble:

Tom Gross in NRO presents a powerful accounting of what he calls 'The BBC's very own Middle East policy'. He's exactly right in that viewpoint. The BBC does effectively have a manifesto for the region, and for much else besides. Significant passage, after which follows a catalogue of BBC shame:

'the Cold War plays a very small part in the worldview of the BBC. They seldom showed signs of caring much about hundreds of millions of people living under Communist dictatorship then, and they are still very reluctant to acknowledge that it happened, let alone their own failings in reporting it.

I mention this because it helps explain the bubble they live in today with regard to the Middle East and Arab world. A bubble which has led them to seek to undermine, even delegitimize Israel, the region's sole democracy, while at the same time bending over backwards to excuse extremist Islamic clerics, and the worst of the Arab dictators.'

The BBC licked its lips and got stuck in when the 9/11 Commission reported, but funnily enough that only seems to have made them hungrier.

Of course the way BBC correspondent Jon Leyne puts it you might imagine that he's knocking the final nail into the coffin of the Bush doctrine by coming out and accusing the administration of propagandising the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. He says 'It has been a subtle operation. Only rarely do administration officials state the case quite as baldly as the Vice President, Dick Cheney, on Monday.'

It's startling isn't it, that Cheney and Bush choose this of all weeks to make their most prominent assertions (click this one for sure if you haven't seen the transcript already) of the link? :

'BORGER: Well, my reading of the report is that it says that, yes, contacts were made between al-Qaida and Iraq, but they could find no evidence that any relationship, in fact, had been forged between al-Qaida and Iraq.

'Vice Pres. CHENEY: And you're talking generally now, not just 9/11.

BORGER: Not just 9/11. And let's talk generally and then we'll get to 9/11.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Talk generally.

BORGER: Generally.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: That's not true. '

I have a strong feeling that the BBC, along with many other bien pensants, have been 'done' here. Commission reports, has linguistic constipation trying to diminish the 9/11 link; Cheney and Bush offer the laxative of real information for the public to reinforce what it already believes: that Saddam's links with Al Qaeda were potential, and maybe actual (forgive pun) dynamite.

In Isolation.

My favourite point from Mcarthy's article:

'I would point out, moreover, that al Qaeda is a full-time terrorist organization — it does not have the same pretensions as, say, Sinn Fein or Hamas, to be a part-time political party. Al Qaeda's time is fully devoted to conducting terrorist attacks and planning terrorist attacks. Thus, if a country cooperates with al Qaeda, it is cooperating in (or facilitating, abetting, promoting — you choose the euphemism) terrorism. What difference should it make that no one can find an actual bomb that was once in Saddam's closet and ended up at the Cole's hull? If al Qaeda and Iraq were cooperating, they had to be cooperating on terrorism, and as al Qaeda made no secret that it existed for the narrow purpose of inflicting terrorism on the United States, exactly what should we suppose Saddam was hoping to achieve by cooperating with bin Laden?'

Mel sums up:

'what is clear is that the mainstream media, both in the US and in Britain, is now simply incapable of applying proper journalistic criteria to the subject of the war in Iraq. Whether through venomous ideology or sheer incompetence and laziness, it is not prepared or able to do the spade-work and actually read what is in the public domain, let alone try to excavate more material.'

There's something deeply wrong with the analysis of the 9/11 commission, and equally the reporting of its findings. It seems that evidences of contacts- real meetings on actual dates; real associations representing a pattern- have been made to defer to a cultural understanding that Saddam and Al Qaeda could not have cooperated because fundamentalist Islam and secular Baathism couldn't endure each other's company.

I look at it this way:

Islam is a political religion. Baathism is a religous kind of politics (if you doubt that consider how Baathists would commit acts of torture while chanting the name of Saddam). Both Pan-Arab nationalism (of which Baathism was a product) and Wahabi Islam (from which Al Qaeda is a paramilitary offshoot) are about the restoration of Islamic/Arabic pride (one emphasising an Arab 'empire', the other a caliphate). Far from being alien, they are, at best, 'cousins'- and we all know what cousins are like in Arab countries. Saddam's government was a government of cousins for cousins, by cousins.

I read Melanie's response to the 9/11 commission findings, and then I read her link, to Andrew Mcarthy at NRO. Mcarthy surely makes the kind of points all sane, concerned, informed people ought to make. His comment on the Mohammed Atta controversy for instance:

'I am perfectly prepared to accept the staff's conclusion about Atta not being in Prague — if the commission provides a convincing, thoughtful explanation, which is going to have to get a whole lot better than a cell-phone record.

Perhaps the 9/11 Commission wasn't intended to do that. Perhaps it was a political sop to Bush's opponents, giving them a chance to put things in a manner acceptable to Democrats, to give the Dems an entree into the War on Terror.

But Will They Backtrack? I don't think so.

Yep, Sharon has copped it from the media in Israel, and the BBC has found it a very convenient bandwagon- worth giving the wheels an extra spin. I can think of occasions on the BBC where Sharon has been depicted as a a 'godfather'-type (Orla Guerin referred to him as both 'godfather' and 'strongman' in one broadcast). That's not to mention a sudden interest in Israeli organised crime .

This has been unsettling at a time when it's important that Sharon retains the trust of westerners and indeed his own people.

When the BBC firmed up their earlier reports that charges against Sharon would be dropped for lack of evidence, I was not surprised (partly because I read the earlier, downbeat BBC reports, partly because it always seemed rather too convenient- too grubby a scenario to catch a powerful man like Sharon)

So after all the shenanigans (and here I mean the press', not Sharon's),

'Everybody expected Attorney General Meni Mazuz to announce that he didn't have enough evidence to prove Ariel Sharon guilty of bribery. Instead, Mazuz revealed that he has tons of evidence showing that there never was any bribery in the first place.'

The above quote is excerpted from an extraordinary 'mea culpa' from a Jerusalem Post journalist- 'The writer is a veteran journalist'- as he says:

'Here I want to apologize for having written that Sharon was a crook and that he should be indicted.'

And the lesson to be learnt by the media is:

'Clearly, we have to start being skeptical of justice officials and stop treating them like the children of light who are going up against the children of darkness – i.e., the politicians and their rich friends.

We should also restrain our tendency to tell news stories like morality plays – they can make for great reading, but real life is rarely that neat. Real life, we've been reminded, can surprise the hell out of you.'

Well, I am not sure the BBC are surprised, because they merely shifted gear in their anti-Sharon coverage:

'Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is in the clear over one bribery case, but another still hangs over him'. (yes, always a 'but' in BBC coverage of Israel, and 'another' is really not all that exciting, but it makes the gear shift smoother, doesn't it?)

And when the BBC says that 'Sharon Case Splits Israeli Press' the reality is that the split is over whether to congratulate Sharon or condemn the prosecutors who brought the case forward for raising it in the first place.

Absolutely no surprise that the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of links between Saddam and Al Qaeda was no.1 story across the BBC networks tonight. When I say dismissal I mean it- this fellow sums it up neatly, running through the options the commission faced when evaluating evidence they have acknowledged that Bin Laden did begin overtures with various countries including Iraq in 1994 (via Instapundit)

It really demonstrates the uniqueness of US politics where opposition to declared Government positions is accorded such a vantage point and platform.

Personally, as a sports fan familiar with cricket's controversial LBW laws and the infamous soccer 'offside' rule, I'd just like to query what how they define the word 'credible' in opposition to the term 'benefit of the doubt'. In cricket, the batsman (I will call him Saddam Bin Laden) is not to be given out if the ball pitched outside leg stump, if bat may have touched ball before impacting the pads, if the bounce may be too great etc etc(you get the picture). In soccer, a forward (I will call him Osama Hussein) is not offside until there is 'clear daylight' between himself and the last defender. I think these laws are there primarily to make the game more exciting as a contest. Is that what the 9/11 commission had in mind?

[Update: Instapundit advocates a closer look at the report. Apparently it does give some support to the notion of Saddam/Al Qaeda cooperation- just not over 9/11. To me though if you accept the one you'd be foolhardy to rule out the other, and if you emphasise that 9/11 was completely free of Saddam's involvement to the best of our knowledge you're seriously downgrading any allegation of collaboration. As in sport, it's no use having a slow-motion replay after the referee has made a decision- the opposition (ie. people like the BBC) have already taken advantage.]

Sharon's right BBC- live with it.

When venerable BBC journalist Jeremy Bowen talks of a 'facade of peace' in Israel I am curious, even suspicious (after all, the BBC has form on Israel). The reality of Israel over the last three years has been one of uncontrollable bloodshed. Peace there means the end of that, and that is what Sharon's policies have been designed for and what they have brought.

That's not good enough for Bowen though:

'Many Israelis believe that the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are starting to pay off. A few big bombs could change everything.'

Well, yes, except that all that would change would be perceptions. The reality would still be that Sharon had created an oasis of calm for Israel-proper to enjoy; that Sharon's policies when less than half complete stemmed the flow of civilian blood. Recent deaths on Israel's part have been military not civilian. They have taken place in Gaza, where Israel plans its withdrawal to take place. Palestinian deaths have resulted from action taken to interdict the terrorist capability in the areas where, for example, roadside bombs have been used to kill passing Israeli troops. So death has lost its sting in Israel itself, and that to me is a real kind of peace. Not the only kind, but the most essential and most basic to all others.

In Bowen's view the two sides are separated not by terrorist acts, but political inequality- which shifts responsibility away from terrorists and onto the Israelis, whose political power is buttressed by military strength. In that his is just a more eloquent summary along lines previously expressed by people like Jenny Tonge, who famously said that if she were in the place of the Palestinians she'd be bombing too (kind of undermining the many Palestinians who take a more peaceful view on principle). All this goes to show that the BBC, far from being impartial, take a strong view and don't hesitate to reinforce it at every opportunity.

Bowen goes on to say that Palestinians in Gaza are miserable, so the peace can't last. I say no: Palestinian misery (as well as that of irrational extremists in Likud) is a necessary phase to be passed on the way to a lasting peace. The illusory comfort blanket of an end to Israel's territorial integrity as a staging post to a Jewless Middle East is an unhygenic psychological prop the Pallies will have to cast away as they rocket giddily upward into the 21st century and the first world.

Just a small point:

You know how the BBC were hailing the local election and euro-election results for Labour as a protest vote against Iraq? Well, they're at it again:

'The prime minister said he was not "deaf to the voice of the electorate" but was convinced his decision to go to war in Iraq had been right.'

This direct link (or even indirect link) made between Iraq and Labour's performance is absurd. The Liberal Democrats- main opponents of the war- won a tiny increase in the percentage of the vote they gained; just over two percent from what was already a very low point. RESPECT only did 'respectably' in London. Both put together were overshadowed by an increase in vote share of almost four percent for the BNP! Meanwhile UKIP went from zeros to heroes (so to speak- they actually increased their share of the vote by ten percent to 16.1), and pushed those anti-war, 'three party politics' Lib Dems into fourth place in the overall poll.

I pointed out earlier that it would be somewhat convenient for Labour if their defeat was seen as a protest vote over Iraq, since it is potentially a transient phenomenon. Journalists, though, are supposed to see through that kind of thing and challenge it- not simply agree because it helps to vindicate their own positions.

US Commander at Abu Graib passes buck, shock. Tells all on BBC Radio Four.

T.H. quote of the day (re: EU elections):

'The political class has refined Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death my right not to have to listen to you say it. Are you still here?' -Mark Steyn

Good Grief this is Good:

'I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitler's fatwa — Mein Kampf — any more irrational than bin Laden's 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description — in the manner that a blood-sucking, stealthy, and nocturnal Dracula was always spookier than a massive, clunky Frankenstein...

In the European mind, and that of its aping American elite, the terrorists lived, slept, and walked in the upper aether — never the streets of Kabul, the mosques of Damascus, the palaces of Baghdad, the madrassas of Saudi Arabia, or the camps of Iran. To assume that the latter were true would mean a real war, real sacrifice, and a real choice between the liberal bourgeois West and a Dark-Age Islamofascist utopia. '- Victor Davis Hanson in NRO.

Hating Reagan and Bush with the BBC.

I know where Tom Carver stands on US politics: I've seen too many of his sneering performances on NewsNight (where Greg Palast has enjoyed so many of the 'triumphs' of his journalistic career) to doubt his conviction that US politics is skewed to the right, that America is riding for a fall etc etc.

Seeing him report the virtues of Reagan (albeit through second-hand sources) can mean only one thing: Carver is on the Bush-Bash trail.

And so it proves when Carver spectacularly lays into Bush:

'Can you imagine a website with George Bush's top 10 speeches?

Though denounced at the time as inflammatory, Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" remains an undeniably influential phrase, whilst George Bush's "axis of evil" already seems like a cheap rip-off with no coherent logic.'

The reason I find this startling (apart from the fact that my state sponsored broadcaster is using praise of a deceased US President to intervene crudely in the public perception of a sitting US President) is that the 'axis of evil' phrase and speeches were really of the same order as Reagan's 'evil empire' comments (not a 'rip-off' but the application of the same moral logic to a different, and fresh, and frightening challenge). To some extent this Bush approach, like Reagan's, was a necessary leap in the dark, given the unpreparedness of public opinion to accept 'enemies' rather than 'issues' and 'problems'. Carver reveals the fact that, like the critics of Reagan themselves, he just does not 'get' the Reagan legacy- or George W. Bush- at all.

To the rhetorical question posed by Carver I can say definitely 'yes, I can imagine a website devoted to GWB's best speeches.' Not only can I imagine it, I think that whether GWB is re-elected or not (the conviction underlying Carver's scepticism being that he will not be: 'A Los Angeles poll conducted the week of the funeral shows the gap between Bush and his opponent John Kerry continuing to widen, with Mr Kerry leading by seven points.') his speeches will be remembered because people will find things Bush said, that others ridiculed, to be correct, just as Reagan was correct- but Bush will be judged to have been more ambitious, and consequently more fundamentally right at a crucial moment in history. (Actually, this website listing important speeches from GWB already exists).

Meanwhile, at this time when Reagan is eulogised for his humility, Carver mocks Bush, Reagan's spiritual legatee, when he says 'There are more references to Reagan's phrase than those of Mr Bush on his own website'. Er, Tom (I feel like saying), isn't that kind of thing potentially the hallmark of a humble person?

And when a Beeb journalist says that Reagan was 'astonishingly successful at reaching out to Democrats' you know that means they think he was some kind of warlock in his way with the voters, but surprisingly he's dead so they can admit his wizardry now, and use it to bash loser Bush.

As for saying that 'George Bush, however, is loathed by Democrats.'- Roger Simon, Jeff Jarvis and co obviously don't count (his website quota is clearly limited to the Daily Kos and the DU). It was Jeff Jarvis who said recently 'We are not a nation divided... We're not red v. blue.'

But, fundamentally, praising Reagan is ok because what was reassuring about Reagan (in many people's view, his strong stand against the USSR which cemented US military/economic confidence and precipitated the end of the Cold War) was 'illusory or insubstantial'. Er, hang on a second. Wait a minute. Aside from being slanderously untrue, isn't that the same accusation that's often made these days by the Beeb against Bush's convictions and confidence over the 'so-called War on Terror'?

Naturally from a true-dyed BBC perspective the battle for international socialism never ended: they lost their red flagbearer, their broader vision suffered the illusion of failure; that's all. Like many British institutions they're so busy fighting the battles of the past, they don't notice where the battles of the present are unfolding- even when their own journalists are on the front line.

Now We Know For Sure.

In the light of what I posted below, it will probably seem hypocritical to point out that because UNMOVIC believe that Saddam was dismantling and exporting his weapons systems just before and during the Iraqi Freedom operation, and that the export process is still ongoing, it proves the 'Saddam was a threat' case for war, but if your cake is big enough I suppose you can have it and eat it at the same time.

Not a Great Conspiracy Theorist, me. That's to say that I generally don't believe in them.

I am convinced though that there was something sufficiently malign going on with the OIl-for-Food scheme that it casts the whole period between Gulf war I and Gulf War II in a different light, and would tranform our understanding of the run up to war were we appreciate things holistically.

This feature about a former UN Oil-for-Food official, Michael Soussan, is revealing in lots of little ways, and some big ones:

'The UN recently claimed it "learned of the 10 per cent kickback scheme only after the end of major combat operations" in 2003.

A lie, said Mr Soussan, recalling the hapless Swedish company that called in 2000, seeking UN help after being asked to pay kickbacks. The Swedes' plea was quickly lost in red tape and inter-office turf wars. After a "Kafka-esque" flurry of internal memos, the Swedes were told to complain to their own government.'

Widening The Lens.

One of the great motivations behind the expansion of the Internet and expecially the blogosphere has been to compensate for the 'sins of omission' of the big media. Obviously there's 'fisking' too, but undeniably with its international scope and its individual base, the blogosphere can reach the parts other newsgatherers can't.

Nevertheless, as Glenn Reynolds recently put it, he doesn't regard blogs as his primary news source- it's just that with the benefit of compare/contrast, immediate and time-specific access to (sometimes) informed speculation and (sometimes) eyewitness communication, the blogosphere has its advantages.

The big media is becoming aware of blogs though, and is aware too that, as with other news sources, their ability to pick up and use blogs and the internet will affect how well they are perceived as news organisations.

Anyway, Kerry at BBBC was right to commend the Beeb's Sarah Brown for covering the story of Iraqi blogs like Iraq the Model. I.T.M. has been growing on me the whole period of about six months I've been reading it. The three guys who write on it are intelligent, funny, mature, thoughtful, and above all, positive.

I couldn't help wondering though at this sudden flurry of interest from the Beeb in Iraq the Model. Could it be that they were spooked into action by Paul Wolfowitz, who quoted the I.T.M. writers approvingly in a a recent article (very much a follow up to GWB's Iraq policy speech ten days previously), published by WSJ 24 hours before Sarah Brown's article came online?

With the Internet, timing is everything. Which reminds me to say that timings on my blog offerings are very irregular as I often make a note of an article and only later write about it, and then forget to change the timings. Mea minor culpa.

Here's a Classic Example:

Politician bruised in polls faces anti-war journalist and knows what said journalist wants: an admission that the journalist's bee-in-the-bonnet issue was responsible for his party's bad election result. Also, conveniently, it makes defeat more manageable if it can be blamed on one transient factor.

So, the journalist takes the 'admission' and broadcasts it at the face value he was pretty keen on from the start (he's a Labour supporter, after all).

But, the reality is that the Tories did best in the local government elections, far outstripping the anti-war Liberals in seats gained from Labour, as well as councils (the Lib-Dems lost control of more councils than they won). And, as you probably know, the Tories supported the war in Iraq. Nice work, impartial BBC.

[Update: England's Sword has similar thoughts. Also, when I said 'seats gained from Labour' I was talking statistically, not geographically. All I mean is that the net gainers in terms of seats were Tories, who happened to be fairly solidly pro-war, whereas the net losers of seats were Labour, and the peacenik Libs were somewhere in-between. To look at BBC reporting though you'd think that Iraq was the issue above all. Ian Murray has some thoughts about where Iraq fits in to a broader picture that make sense to me.]

To turn now to another theme the BBC do biasedly, this article from Stephen Sackur looks like it's trying to soften the blow when it becomes clear that the Euro-elections are not only farcical in the UK- they're farcical in lots of countries.

Take the Czech Republic- a very nice country the BBC visit a great deal. Not sure if this is due to cheap flights or the loveliness that is Prague, or the world's finest cheap beer.

First of all I take issue with the notion that the Czechs were drinking 'cheap champagne' on May 1st. I'm pretty sure they'd be drinking (if not their gorgeous beer) the Czech alternative to champagne, which is delicious, tart and fruity, luminous and bubbly, but not entitled to call itself champagne, due to EU rules.

Also readers of the article will probably not notice the absence of mention of Vaclav Klaus, Czech president and euro-sceptic (or, as he put it recently, 'Euro-realist'). We hear plenty though from a representative of Vaclav Havel's POV- Havel is the most pro-EU Czech grandee around.

This source gives us some excuses in advance for a pitiful turnout or some odd elected representatives:

'"It took us so long to be accepted into the club, you made it so hard for us, and now we're wondering what all the fuss was about," he says. '
- which is one way of looking at it, rather like the old Heathite argument that our problem was not being in the EU [EC, EEC] from the beginning.

The source, Jiri Pehe, also gives us the optimistic note that 'we'll see our MEPS taking important decisions, and we'll benefit from the experience." '

Meanwhile Sackur is at pains to blame the usual suspects behind EU failure: lack of information and education.

He's also keen to explain away a possible eclipse of the ruling SDP, who are 'suffering a familiar case of the mid-term blues.' -except that in a country where democracy is not fifteen years old (since re-birth), I don't suppose 'mid-term blues' will be all that familiar.

Finally, Sackur tries to prepare us for the shock that 'unreconstructed communists' may be elected- to which my response was, they'll fit right in amongst the pinkos and the greens that will already be there.

After all,

'Nowadays the communists don't demonise the EU as a capitalist plot, they simply want to "remodel" it for the good of the workers.' - which is surely quite respectable Europolitical sentiment.

Add to this Sackur's vignette about aspiring Euro MP and expired porn star 'Dolly Buster', and we're ready to hear that

'in the absence of an informed debate on European issues the best way to rouse interest in this lacklustre campaign season is to provide novelty, human interest.
Some would call it opportunism. '-

At which point my antenna are twitching and I half expect to hear tell of Rob K.S. or Joan Collins.

But we end on a sober, if positive note. Sackur is clearly more impressed with the Euro Parliathingy than me when he says

'Being a player in the EU club can be challenging and rewarding, but rarely do MEPs or their constituents describe it as "fun". '

I suppose it's challenging for us and rewarding for the Euro MP's.

(Meanwhile more Reynolds- on the EuroParliathingy here)

Sick and Tired actually, of seeing Human Rights Watch get an automatic pass to creating a BBC headline when they haven't done anything to deserve it.

All they have done is pass comment on Abu Ghraib, and offered their opinion that it came about as a result of US policy post 9/11- a vast conspiracy theory encompassing Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and tactics for other suspected Al Qaeda detainees, if you will.

They have no new evidence; they have no revelations. They just produced a pastiche of press reports, briefings, off the record comments of intelligence staff, and frankly, tittle-tattle, to 'prove' that Abu Ghraib came about as a culmination of Bush policies. Then, in a lull in the US election run-up caused by John Kerry's calculated pause in campaigning, they 'challenged the government to prove' its innocence 'by releasing all relevant government documents'- and that won them a top place in the headlines.

Well, a lot of sensitive documents (like the Taguba report) have already reached the public sphere, and trials of miscreants have begun, and the whole Abu Ghraib thing brought shame on the media for their utter irresponsibility in magnifying every image, every document- yet despite all that the cases of abuse appear localised and limited.

When will the Beeb get the message: HRW may have many good hearted people. They may have many an Oxbridge, Yale or Harvard graduate working for them, and many others with colourful and rich life experience (in fact, as they put it, 'lawyers, journalists, academics, and country experts of many nationalities and diverse backgrounds') - but they are just an impressive kind of pressure group, nothing more.

Straight from the UN Special Commissioner, I had to mention this fascinating and entertaining post which tracks through the BBC's reporting of the conviction of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti. It takes them an entire article of explaining the views and social significance of Barghouti before they even half-mention the crimes he's been convicted of. I knew little about this until Max went to work on a long but worthwhile post.

Time to give Paul Reynolds another bash, I think.

Not that this article is wildly wrong about anything, but the smug superiority Reynolds affects in his writing always makes for errors and slantedness.

Like most BBC journalists Reynolds seems to share the opinion of Jeremy Paxman, quoting H.L. Mencken, that the proper relationship between journalist and politician is the same as between dog and lamp post. In that spirit Reynolds takes one phrase of Jack Straw's, notes the omission in it of the word 'interim' from the mention of the new Iraqi government, and infers that the 'policians' are trying to, in modern parlance, 'big up' the Iraqi interim government.

Another thing he does is give the anti-war perspective all the best lines and most of the airtime, the first bite at the cherry and the best. Quel surprise!

Aptly named Toby Dodge, admittedly labelled 'a critic of American and British policy in Iraq', gets to set his terms unchallenged. He's the one to define what 'multilateral' means- and it isn't a UN resolution, apparently; that was just a 'nod' from France and Russia.

When Dodge describes the new Iraqi (interim) government as a 'green zone phenomenon' it is helpfully explained for us by Reynolds as 'the sealed area in Baghdad from which the Coalition Authority and the Governing Council operate'- but not challenged. The fact that the first act of the 'green zone' government was to disband militias up and down Iraq seems to be beyond the BBC's own 'green zone'.

Come to that, it's another precious pot swaps with kettle moment as the BBC, famously bound to their Baghdad hotel bars and friendly former Baathist translators, accuse the Iraq government of insularity (accuse them by their silence).

The disbanding of militias would also appear to give the lie to this:

'Although technically sovereign, the interim government cannot in practice do a great deal, partly because the majority Shia did not want it to be able to take decisions in advance of an elected government. '

Reynolds concludes by saying that

'It can be seen that the interim government is a staging post, not the destination.'

and I'll conclude by saying that it ought to be obvious that no-one's pretending it was anything else- unless you're determined to piss on them whatever, that is.

More on the Gardner/Cumbers shootings.

The Belmont Club sums up why this blog is finding it so difficult to integrate poetry with its other concerns. Further link to 'six book' poet Judyth Hill here (with picture).

This as an American is shot dead in Riyadh- a further victim of strife in the Kingdom.

Just to make a note-

Fatalities in Iraq are a topic likely to be raised again in the news at some point soon.

To avoid fatalities in a place like Iraq where weapons are widespread, tribalism rife, and brutality lodged in the memories of all, is obviously difficult. That's not to mention all the military paraphernalia like mines and explosives that are literally lying around the country. Recently there were six deaths of Slovakian, Polish and Latvian troops in one explosion whilst attempting to defuse mines in Southern Iraq.

But anyway- one of the things that's received next to no attention in the media is the prevalence of US fatalities in one particular province of Iraq- Al-Anbar.

I keep seeing casualty reports from Centcom like this, and this, and this. All carry the same formulaic announcement of a death from hostile forces 'while conducting security and stability operations' in Al-Anbar.

This province is the one where the 'Wedding Party' was bombed- the one that borders Syria and in which the main arterial route from Syria to Baghdad passes through Fallujah (I don't discount casualties in Fallujah- which received plenty of attention- but US troops are not presently fighting there). The Belmont Club has identified Al-Anbar's borderland with Syria a crucial area of combat for US troops.

We will continue to hear about the security situation in Iraq being awful- but we won't get a breakdown of the violence taking account of its provinicial nature and the strategic reasons why violence is occurring in specific areas in particular forms. It's noticeable, for instance, that the Al-Anbar casualties are not usually roadside bombs (when they are we hear about it): evidently the terrorist insurgents there don't need the same clandestine tactics they use elsewhere in Iraq to have their intended effect. The reason for this has to relate to the Syrian border- and that's my guess why we are not hearing about it from the BBC.

Of course there could be other factors: in an interesting development reported today by Reuters, BBC journalists working in dangerous places may be getting bodyguards.

Hating Reagan with the BBC

According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, he'd be nowhere without the BBC:

'My most important investigations, all but banned from U.S. airwaves, were developed and broadcast by BBC Newsnight'

A self-styled 'friend' of Michael Moore, Palast shares Moore's affinity for publicity and sensationalism. Notice the typical 'all but' formulation (also a Moore favourite) in his claim of being banned in the US, which translates as something like 'no one in the States considered him stable enough to trust his reporting'. One supportive critic describes how

'he backs his investigative work with a colorful private dick/Sherlock Holmes persona, complete with breathless descriptions of the crimes of the powerful. His status as one of the new People's Pundits has been magnified by articles like this one in the alternative media, as well as through the support of cultural icons as disparate as Jello Biafra and Hustler magazine.' (Ed.- Hustler magazine?)

But, as Palast admits, his credibility derives from his BBC work, the latest of which was his 'Bush Family Fortunes' documentary, shown on BBC3 in June 03.

According to the above article,

'Palast says "Bush Family Fortunes" is the first in a series of BBC exposes, "culminating with a feature-length film, on the cowboy empire. We've now taken this weird mixing, of Bush family finances and our nation's foreign and domestic policies, to a new level, that is armed and dangerous." As he continues to broadcast truth to power on BBC-TV, we can only wonder when he will be allowed to do so back home, in the land of the free.'

But what's happened to the rest of the sequence of Palast's 'truth to power' documentaries? I haven't noticed them appearing on the main BBC channels, and that BBC3 documentary 'The Bush Family fortunes' I had taken to be a one-off.

However, I can tell what kind of a journalist Palast is, and the BBC have fostered, from his valediction for Ronald Reagan:

'I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses...all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.' ...

'Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead.

Killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, good-bye and good riddance.'

More Horrific Detail about what befell BBC journalist Frank Gardner and his cameraman Simon Cumbers at the hands of terrorists. According to Reuters and eye-witness accounts the Westerners were separated from their Saudi escorts before being shot, and Gardner was shot, apparently, in the feet and pelvis, and then left lying in the street to remonstrate with passers by that he was 'a muslim', and that they should help him.

Let's hope Gardner comes through it. The whole episode gives another unwanted, unasked-for glimpse of how deep the hatred runs- with targets and methods that symbolise the spiritual contempt that they have for the unbelievers. (almost forgot- via LGF)

A current BBC article made me laugh, for reasons I will explain:

One was that I'm willing to bet that if Israelis were looking for the BBC to cover different aspects of what goes on in Israel other than an Intifada, they would not have put 'organised crime' first on the list. Maybe they would have said 'medical technology', or 'genetic engineering', or even 'Jaffa oranges', or 'polished diamonds', where Israel is prominent- but not 'organised crime'. It's true that the BBC will be able to add this to their statistics for 'non-Intifada/Palestinian Israel issues reported'- useful for informing the next academic study of their 'balance'- but it's a joke, and an unhealthy one at that, as far as reporting 'the other side' of Israeli life is concerned.

But, the Beeb being the Beeb, when they're not arguing that Israel is the oppressor of reasonable Palestinian aspirations they are saying that Israel is the not the smoothly functioning democratic state that 'right wing apologists' asininely say it is.

The second reason I laughed was the irony that when the Beeb describe how 'Israel struggles to keep a lid on crime' they are wilfully ignoring the reality that crime in Israel is not even at an historic high, and is certainly significantly lower than it is in dear old Blighty.

It's lower than it was in 1997, 1998 and 1999 (before the Intifada), and at less than five hundred thousand reported offences per year (including those from which no prosecution follows) amidst a population of 6.7 million, is significantly lower than the rate for England and Wales, which according to latest figures was nearly 5.9 million amidst a population of just over 52 million.

If 'organised' crime is on the rise in Israel, it isn't making a lot of impact on the crime statistics.

The question of whether crime in Israel is 'organised' is also arguable. As the Israeli National Police spokesman Gil Kleiman says, " we do not have organised crime in Israel. We have criminals who are organised." . What he means to do is to rebut the idea that crime in Israel is part of the system- a claim the BBC implicitly makes when it says that

'Organised crime has become a booming industry in Israel in the last decade.'

But, I'm thinking, in the light of the allegations (likely to be dropped for insufficient evidence) against Ariel Sharon, a fair few readers will see a sinister Jewish cabal shining through the prism of the term 'organised crime', with its implications of corruption of authority and international connections. I am reminded that Orla Guerin in a BBC broadcast recently referred to Ariel Sharon as the 'Godfather' of the settler progamme, and Israel's 'strongman'. Coincidence?

I would say in conclusion that there is a story lurking here- equally interesting to Israel's government, Israelis and outsiders. It would be interesting, for instance, to look at how the influx of Jews from Russia (part of a dramatic increase in population) has perhaps included those who have not severed links with the Russian mafia that burgeoned in the 90's, and how the Russian mafia has international connections (such as with Premiership football, for instance- that Arsenal, you just can't trust them!), but the implication that Israel is somehow becoming a sponsor of crime, or that crime there is 'organised' in senses that relate to the governance of Israel, or that it is out of control, are quite simply missing the unambiguous story in search of the anti-Israel slant.

Addendum:

Curiously, I've noticed that in the links from this item there is a BBC investigation into Russian-Jewish mafia connections which provides some of the background for this report. However, it dates from 1998. That investigative report contained the assertion that 'Former police chief Asaf Hefetz says £2.5bn ($4bn) of organised crime money from the former Soviet Union has been invested in Israeli real estate, businesses and banks in the past seven years.'

Bizarrely, the latest article says 'One former Israeli police chief, Asaf Heretz, claimed recently $2.5bn in "dirty money" had been invested in Israel in recent years.'

So 1998 is recent? Or has the claim just been adjusted for inflation and business growth, and reasserted? Or what does the retired police chief know now that he didn't know in '98? What did he know and when did he know it?!

Odd- and just another sidelight on an unsatisfactory article that to my mind needlessly casts doubt on the respectability of Israeli society.

Also, this dramatic news breaks: two BBC journalists shot- one killed- near Saudi capital Riyadh. No word on who did it, but it's no surprise to hear that 'Security sources said the gunmen had escaped'.

I Knew He Would Do It

Much as I would like to leave my little meditation on Reagan and Bush to be my Sunday blogging offering, I was delighted by the news that Ariel Sharon has got his way over the Gaza withdrawal plan.

My delight was only dulled a little by the BBC report, which says that the plan 'implicitly recognised that Israel would retain large parts of the West Bank - and some Palestinian refugees and their descendants who lost their homes when Israel was created would lose the right to return.'

Well, sort-of-yes to the first point, though to point to a failure to get out when the point of the (hard won) plan is to get out is a bit perverse. The second point is beyond the BBC's remit. The 'right to return' depends upon which resolution, treaty or manifesto you are reading from. That the BBC accepts it as a de facto 'right to return' just illustrates which camp they are in. I hope they don't start applying the same logic to the Sudetenland part of the Czech Republic.

BTW: This article on Palestinian tunnels for arms smuggling is, I'm happy to say, the best thing the BBC has done in ages. They must have wanted to mend a fence or two (excuse pun) now that they're under new direction.

Ronald Reagan's death confirms the odd sense that this has been an historic weekend. There was a strange calm I noticed on Friday, and the warm mild air of June in England has made for a soporific, contemplative atmosphere this weekend. What the D-Day commemorations have been doing via the rationalised TV schedules in bringing to mind victory in the struggle against the Nazis, Reagan's death does in recalling victory in the Cold War.


The BBC's 'Have Your Say' page has produced a mix of the good, the average, and, unfortunately, the ugly:

'Yet another republican warmonger. I hope he saw the error of his ways before he died.'
Tom Amos, England'

What caught my eye though was the Beeb preamble, which said that

'He entered the White House with a reputation for having only a vague understanding of foreign affairs, and was deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union - referring to it as "the Evil Empire".'

This is a typical Beeb spin. You might suppose from this that Reagan was deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union because he had only a vague understanding of foreign affairs. You might also suppose that he made the comment about the 'evil empire' as he 'entered the Whitehouse', according with his reputation as a foreign policy novice.

In fact the speech in which Reagan branded the Soviet project 'evil' was made after more than a year in the Whitehouse, on June 8th 1982 to the British House of Commons, and thereafter followed up in other speeches where he used the term 'Evil Empire' that will always be associated with him. It contained a great deal of reflection on foreign policy, and an analysis of the trends behind history. The trouble that the BBC- with its queasy statist mentality- finds, is that Reagan's diagnosis of the troubles of modern history was, and is, unpalatable to it. The speech begins:

'We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention -- totalitarianism.'

Recently GWB also made a dramatic speech, part of a series of speeches, one which was misrepresented by the BBC as a simple comparison between the WoT and WWII. It was in fact a similar sort of speech to the one given by Ronald Reagan- a philosophical scan of history and how the WoT fits into a continuum from the previous century with its plague of totalitarianism. As W. remarks:

'Like other totalitarian movements, the terrorists seek to impose a grim vision in which dissent is crushed, and every man and woman must think and live in colorless conformity. So to the oppressed peoples everywhere, we are offering the great alternative of human liberty.'

and as he also says (my favourite part):

'For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy.'