7/7...Some personal observations

Thanks first to all of those in the US who have called or sent e-mails checking in on us. We are fine, and luckily I do not know anyone who has suffered directly from the attacks today. Thanks also to those US readers who have sent their condolences to and expressions of solidarity with the British people today. I whinge an awful lot about how much America and Americans are misunderstood over here, and about the undercurrent of anti-Americanism that exists, especially in the bien-pensant circles of elite British life (like at the BBC). But I was living here back on 9/11 and must confess that I was touched by the sincere outpouring of concern and emotion, not just for me and my family but for America as a nation, from ordinary British people in the days following 9/11. I still remember, on the Saturday after 9/11, driving around Surrey and being struck by the number of American flags I saw. (Even British flags are generally few and far between.) I hope and expect to see the same embrace from Americans towards Britain in the wake of today's events. They deserve it.

On the attacks themselves, my first reaction is that if the death toll (37 at the time of writing) remains this low, it is a remarkable result. Four bombs on public transport during rush hour...I would have expected a much higher toll. Looking at the picture of what remains of the double-decker bus, I find it amazing that only 2 people were killed, as the BBC is now saying. Having said that, there are over 700 non-fatal injuries, many of which seem likely to be pretty traumatic (eg loss of limbs). That is no small number.

Tony Blair gave a good strong speech tonight at about 5:30, after leaving the G8 meeting in Scotland. On second thought, I think my earlier criticism of his reaction in Scotland was a bit harsh. His was an unscripted, impromptu reaction to a horrible event, and probably deserved to be taken without having his words so scrutinized.

I listened to David Davis (Conservative MP) on the radio on my way home, and he was very good. When the BBC presenter tried to suggest perhaps these attacks were the predictable result of Britain's stance on Iraq, Davis shut him down immediately, insisting that blame for the attacks lie directly on the shoulders of the people who target innocent people, not on British policy. David was also good in parlaiment, properly offering the full and unqualified support of his party to the government.

Saddam apologist George Galloway, on the other hand, was his usual disgusting self, blaming - who else? - America. Minister Adam Ingram got it about right in suggesting that Galloway was "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood".

I am equally unimpressed with the reaction of so-called Muslim leaders. The BBC headlines its story "Muslim leaders join condemnation", but in fact they seem primarily motivated by concern for the "Muslim community" rather than for Britain itself.

Muslim leaders have condemned the attacks on London and said they fear their communities could now fall prey to vigilante attacks.

Muslim Association of Britain president Ahmed Sheikh said the attacks would make the Muslim community less safe...He said the police should consider extra protection for mosques and Islamic schools

I suspect the "Muslim community" will find itself a lot safer when "leaders" like Sheikh start focusing their concern on how the attacks make the British community less safe. Sir Iabal Sacranie struck a more sensible note:

"We are simply appalled and want to express our deepest condolences to the families.

"These terrorists, these evil people want to demoralise us as a nation and divide us.

"All of must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down."

I can only hope the "Muslim community" takes these words to heart. Their help in hunting down the terrorists would most certainly be welcome.

An interesting note...New York's 9/11 mayor Rudy Giuliani happened to be in London, and indeed right near Liverpool Street when the first attack occurred today. I am watching him at this very moment being his usual, eloquent self on Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman.

It's been a long day. Thanks again for all the concern from everyone. And break out your British flags.

Note: Ten minutes on after Giuliani, Tony Benn just said on the BBC that "of course" Bush had planned on invading Iraq prior to 9/11. Jeremy Paxman let the claim stand without comment. This is one reason why I find the BBC such an atrocity...giving voice to loons like Benn without objection.

Terrorists blow up London trains, buses; Africa suffers

I actually think that Blair has been pretty good on terrorism, and most of what he said up in Gleneagles today was the right thing, but this mindlessness can’t pass without comment:

It is particularly barbaric this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty in Africa and the long term problems of climate change and the environment.

Spare us the G8 self-importance, Tony. The fact that you’ve been pulled away from your plans to save the world from itself has no bearing whatsoever on the degree of barbarity of what’s happened.

Surprise surprise

Sky says Al Qaeda claiming responsibility.

Al Qaeda

Sky is reporting that one of the bus explosions was a suicide bomber. If that is true, I think we know who did this.

Who is it?

Reports now of 3 buses exploding, including one in Marlyebone. Many sirens in The City, where I am at the moment. This does not look good.

Anti-capitalist G8 protestors or Islamic fascists?

London attacked?

Lots of reports of explosions in London this morning in several tube stations, and a bus. Initial reports were that the tube stations were either a collision or the result of some kind of power surge. After the bus explosions, those explanations seem less likely. National power grid is reporting no abnormalities at this point.

Seems like coordinated attacks at the moment. More later.

It's official: G8 leaders "run the world"

BBC reporter Paul Mason reporting from the protests in Gleneagles, confirms tonight on Newsnight that the views of the protestors are correct. Amidst a group of protestors tearing down a fence and attacking police, Mason informs us:

People outside this fence want to change the world. Those inside of it, or what remains of it, run the world.

The BBC uncovers the illuminati. Thanks, Paul.

Make Poverty History (but first....)

Does anyone else see the massive disconnect exhibited by a British media which lionizes Bob Geldof for engaging in mindless emotional blackmail like this:

He said if Mr Blair met objections from other world leaders, who have been arriving in Scotland through the day, he should remind them of the 50,000 people dying daily because they were too poor to live.

...while at the same time wildly celebrating having won the obligation to spend up to £5 billion on a sporting event?

I'd like to know why the BBC doesn't ask the sainted Geldof if he "backed the bid".

The oh-so-subtle Guardian

From The Guardian today, in an article otherwise about the lovefest between Bob Geldof and Tony Blair:

[George Bush] repeated the White House line that many developing countries were not involved in the Kyoto negotiations, and said that he would find it hard to endorse an agreement that would lead to significant job losses in the US.

Now, I wonder how many instances one might find of The Guardian referring to Geldof repeating "the Live8 line" on African poverty. Or of environmentalists repeating the "global-warming line". Or of Kofi Annan repeating the "UN line". I'm guessing, oh, never perhaps?

But today we get a two-fer on Bush:

The Bush administration has been attacked for its line that there is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming, a position similar to that of US oil firms.

Hmmm. Bush...oil firms...same "line". Now why do you suppose The Guardian made that connection?

BBC finally corrects itself

The BBC finally did a story today on the Valerie Plame investigation without asserting as undisputed fact that the leak of her employment with the CIA was a federal crime. As I have already noted, every other time it has written on this story it has casually claimed that the leak was a criminal act, a "fact" which is in much doubt.

Three cheers for the BBC for finally getting it right on this story. (Although it still has not mentioned the hysterical role the New York Times itself played in calling for the very investigation that it now thinks is unjustified.)

Is it just me?

Does anyone else find it at least marginally distasteful that the base of the dome on St. Paul's Cathedral has been festooned with an advertisement for the Make Poverty History campaign?

It's not the fact that it is promoting what is essentially a political lobby. Involving itself in politics is hardly unknown to the Church of England. But it strikes me as at least a little bit undignified to take one of the most important historical landmarks in all of Britain, which famously survived even the blitz with its structural integrity intact, and turn it into billboard.

It's the people, stupid

Last week the BBC did a story on gay marriage in Canada, and how apparently many gay couples from the US are trekking up to the Great White North in order to get hitched. Near the end of the story, the BBC helpfully reminds us that:

President George Bush's administration has repeatedly said it is firmly opposed to any recognition of marriage for gays and lesbians.

Which is true enough. But what the BBC does not tell us is that:

• since marriages are legally regulated at the state level, whether or not George Bush is opposed to them is pretty much irrelevant to whether they are deemed to be legal (see Massachusetts)
• poll after poll after poll after poll after poll in the US has shown the American people themselves to be “firmly opposed” to any recognition of marriage for gays and lesbians
• in the last election cycle, 11 states took up the issue of same-sex marriage bans as ballot initiatives, and in every single state, the ban passed.

The BBC needs to start understanding that George Bush, or any President for that matter, is an elected official with certain, limited duties, not the singular fount from whom springs forth all law and political policy throughout the land.

Make the BBC history

In all of this euphoria over the Live 8 concerts around the world, I feel compelled to point out something that may seem obvious. Live 8 was a political event. It was not, like its predecessor Live Aid, a charity event. It was conceived, planned, and executed precisely with a political dimension in mind, and to achieve certain political ends. Again, this probably seems obvious, as even the media got the idea.

The BBC: The world's biggest music stars have united in concerts around the globe to put pressure on political leaders to tackle poverty in Africa.

The Guardian: Unlike the original LiveAid concerts held 20 years ago, today's performances are not about raising money. Instead they create a visible symbol and a message to politicians that poverty is a meaningful issue right across the world.

And, lest there be any doubt, read Bob Geldof’s own words on the reason for the occasion.

So, having established beyond doubt that this was an event in political advocacy, aimed at pressuring politicians to adopt certain policies towards Africa, I have a sacrilegious question to pose:

Why was Live 8 broadcast live by the BBC as if it were entertainment instead of simply covered on the 10 pm news like any other political protest?

The BBC’s values say that it is “independent, impartial, and honest”. Is it now a mark of “impartiality” and “honesty” to broadcast live, for over 10 straight hours, both on TV and on radio, political advocacy on a narrow issue with few, if any, dissenting voices to be heard?

It is not as though the political point of the event was not controversial. If it weren’t there would have been no need and no point to the event in the first place. And it is not as though there were no sensible critics to be found.

The BBC did, at least, admit that broadcasting the event raised questions about its impartiality, although not until after the fact. And of course it claims to have issued special guidelines to the producers and presenters of the broadcast, to help them stay impartial. But the notion that the BBC “cannot be seen to endorse the Make Poverty History campaign” when, as it openly acknowledges, it is the major broadcast “partner” of the event for which the “rallying cry” is precisely that, is simply laughable. The very effectiveness of the political intent of the event was dependent upon the BBC being that “partner”. Refraining from using the term "we" when speaking about the event hardly absolves the BBC of the central role it played in selling the politics of it.

We have long known of the agenda driven journalism and advocacy practiced at the BBC. TAE was born partly out of an attempt to highlight that very fact. But rarely has the BBC engaged so blatantly and shamelessly in political advocacy to so little comment or objection. Is it somehow acceptable now for the BBC to take the license fee that TV owners are forced by law to pay into its coffers and use it to give almost a whole day’s worth of free advertising to a political lobby? Sadly, as long as it is packaged up along with the dulcet tones of Paul McCartney and Annie Lennox, the answer appears to be yes.

Geldof worship

In the front page story yesterday on the Live8 concert in Hyde Park, we find the calm, studied, sober observations that we've come to expect from The Sunday Times:

Then the music and the mood gradually found their rhythm and, in a break between acts, a shaggy-haired prophet emerged from the jungle of giant amplifiers.

Dressed all in white with a black cap, Mahatma Geldof shuffled forward. “Hello,” he said. “Thanks for coming. It would have been a bit crap if nobody had showed up.”

So glad to see The Times maintaining its restraint and composure amidst a sea of emotion.

Rubbish cleared from Hyde Park; remains thick at The Guardian

With Live 8 finally (and mercifully) history, The Guardian gives us this intro into its profiles of the G8 politicians and what to expect at Gleneagles this week.

With the rubbish cleared from Hyde Park and other venues around the world and the music fast becoming a mellow memory, the focus shifts to the eight men with the power to decide Africa's fate when they meet at the Gleneagles hotel in Perthshire this week. Musicians and politicians called at the concert for justice for Africa. The leaders of eight of the world's wealthiest countries are capable of delivering. But do they all want to?

The power to decide Africa’s fate? The ability to deliver “justice” to Africa? Sorry, but I’m sensing the faint whiff of a 21st century White Man’s Burden. The west may be in a position to provide a few bucks in emergency aid and save some people from immediate starvation, but it is little more than neo-colonial arrogance and condescension to think that the fate of Africa lies with the west rather than with its own people and leaders. Which would be fine, I suppose, if they really meant it. But they don’t. The Guardian, no doubt, has little interest in the monumental undertaking (removal and replacing of governments, widespread cultural change, ie real imperialism) it would require of the west to truly sort out Africa’s problems. Better to demand the spending of a few billion (of other people’s money, of course) on some incoherent notion of “justice”, and revisit the issue again in 20 years while lamenting the poor job the west is doing when another aging rocker discovers that Africa still remains as poor and corrupt as it ever did.

UPDATE: The Guardian’s own Madeleine Bunting agrees with me…sort of.

Could Britain open a new page in its long engagement with Africa, finally drawing a line under the colonial themes of "saving" and "civilising" the continent?...

It would correct the media myth that the fate of millions of Africans is passively lying in the hands of eight men arriving in Gleneagles on Wednesday, and make clear that, given half a chance, Africans can shape the circumstances of their daily lives - and their often-precarious survival - far more powerfully and effectively than the G8…

What we are seeing now in this unprecedented media focus on Africa is a very old theme. In 1787 the slogan of the Quaker abolitionists was "Am I not a man and a brother?" But the radicalism of this rallying cry was belied by the image on the Anti-Slavery Society's seal of the African slave - he was on his knees. His liberty and dignity was ours for the giving, not his for the taking. The relationship at this G8, more than 200 years later, is similarly framed: African as supplicant to the (mostly) white men.

Of course, sensible thinking only goes so far at The Guardian, so a return to the same, tired, hysterical left-wing idiocy could only be expected.

The west, in its rapacious and impatient greed, destroys with contempt or indifference all that it can't appropriate for its own aggrandisement. Africa exposes - like no other continent - the hubristic arrogance of the western industrialised countries that dominate the globe and are forcing an entire species into one model of human development - a model with catastrophic shortcomings.

Now is precisely the point at which we need to learn about the genius of Africa's own history of development, which, Lonsdale suggests, lies in the extraordinary resilience and self-sufficiency to survive and adapt in habitats not always conducive to human life.

… We - Africans and westerners - might begin to reframe the debate and ask ourselves if it isn't the grossly polluting G8 which is a scar on the conscience of the world.

Hmmm. Yes. Perhaps Africa should be sending us some aid.

BBC spins like a top

Today the BBC has a dumbed down version of a New York Times story on conservative opposition to potential Supreme Court nominee Alberto Gonzales. The NYT details at length the many groups of conservatives who are luke warm at best towards the prospect of a Gonzales nomination and explains the source of their angst. Trying to distil all this into a simple explanation, the BBC offers up this:

The conservatives who oppose Mr Gonzales' nomination say he is too moderate and that his views on issues such as abortion and affirmative action are not far enough to the right.

It is just about impossible to believe that any conservative ever said such a thing. Conservatives might say that he lacks principle, but they wouldn't say he is “too moderate”. And they wouldn’t talk about his views on abortion and affirmative action not being “far enough to the right”. Indeed, they wouldn’t mention those views at all. They would talk about his commitment (or lack thereof) to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution.

This is not what conservatives say. This is what liberals say about what conservatives say. And it wasn’t even lifted from the NYT source article. It was strictly a BBC addition. Which tells us much about what to expect of the BBC’s coverage as the nomination process carries on.

Unanimity standard?

The BBC reports on Senator Chris Dodd (Democrat from Connecticut) giving Bush advice on selecting his Supreme Court nominee.

Ms O'Connor - a former Arizona politician - was nominated by President Ronald Reagan and took up her seat in 1981.

Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd urged Mr Bush to follow Reagan's example in making his choice.

"Ronald Reagan was arguably the most conservative president of our time and he chose someone who was confirmed with a vote of 99-nothing," Mr Dodd said. "That's the standard."

What the BBC does not tell its readers is that Ms O'Connor's vote came at a time prior to Democratic attempts to politicize the confirmation process. Had her nomination come up today rather than in 1981, there is virtually no chance she could be comfirmed by a 99-0 vote. To see this, all one needs to do is look at how the left is now gearing up to oppose the possibility that Antonin Scalia, who himself was confirmed to the Court by a vote of 98-0 five years after O'Connor, might replace Rhenquist as Chief Justice.

Thanks for providing such informative context, Beeb.

Let the confusion begin

The BBC has begun its coverage of the Supreme Court vacancy, with articles here and here, along with a list of possible successors to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat. Within that list there is a hint that the BBC does not understand one of the most fundamental issues which makes the vacancy such a source of political controversy…abortion. In its profile of potential nominee Emilio Garza, the BBC says:

But his candidacy will not be welcomed by liberals who fear he is likely to support a change in laws protecting abortion rights.

He has in the past suggested he would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that legalised abortion.

And he has also suggested that abortion regulation should be decided by state legislatures.

First of all, there are no “laws” protecting abortion rights in the US. There is only a Supreme Court decision (which itself is founded upon other Supreme Court decisions) and the Supreme Court does not make laws, or at least, according to the Constitution, they are not supposed to make laws, nor are they allowed to “change” laws. That power lies with legislatures, not courts.

Second, the word “also” suggests that advocating abortion regulation at the state level is distinct from advocating the overturning of Roe v Wade. But there is no “also” about it. Whether or not state legislatures can Constitutionally regulate abortion was precisely the issue decided by Roe v Wade. In arguing that Roe v Wade should be overturned, one is necessarily arguing that responsibility for regulating abortion lies with state legislatures.

A fundamental lack of understanding of the very heart of the abortion issue does not bode well for the BBC’s coverage of either the Supreme Court vacancy or, in particular, the special interest uproar that will inevitably grow once Bush nominates someone. Expect to see the BBC make of mess of it.

Irrelevancy at Reuters

I saw this the other day on WSJ's Best of the Web, and a TAE reader Don Black also noted it, so I figured I would pass it on. From Reuters, the same British news organization that refuses to use the word terrorist when describing, er, terrorists, we get this story about a 115 year-old Dutch woman, the oldest living person on record and a woman who has no apparent connection to the US. But Retuers has found one:

Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper, a former needlework teacher, was born in 1890, the year Sioux Indians were massacred by the U.S. military at the Battle of Wounded Knee.

Do you suppose Reuters has a list of perceived historical injustices committed by America that it passes out to its writers with instructions to work them into stories whenever possible?

I wonder why Reuters chose not to point out that 1890 was also the year in which Britain concluded treaties with both France and Germany agreeing to carve up Africa among the colonial powers. Even if as much of a non-sequitur as Wounded Knee, it at least has the advantage of being a bit more topical.

What motivates the left?

A remarkable debate between David Horowitz, author of Unholy Alliance; Radical Islam and the American Left, and Daniel Lazare, writer for The Nation magazine. The premise of Horowitz' book is that anti-war movement is essentially an alliance between the old Communist left and the new Muslim radicals, each of whom wants the US to lose both in Iraq and the War on Terror. Lazare, rejects the claim at first, but ultimately concedes the point (while denying it all the same). Michael Medved is the host of the show.

An excerpt:

Michael Medved:Now, do you think that – do you feel some sympathy for the so-called insurgents in Fallujah?

Daniel Lazare: Oh, absolutely yes, total sympathy, total solidarity.

Michael Medved: You do?

David Horowitz: So who's the sophist here?

Daniel Lazare: Of course, absolutely. The insurgents in Fallujah are repelling a foreign invasion. They have every right to do it. Now, I’m not going to support every last action by every last fighter there, obviously, but certainly they have a right to repel a foreign invasion of their country.

David Horowitz: The people Lazare is referring to are the terrorists, of course; they're not the Iraqi people. They're a tiny minority of Sunni Muslims who are really upset because a monster has been taken down – their monster. This is the same ruse leftists used to rationalize their support for a Communist victory in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh – an operative of Stalin’s Comintern who spent most of his life in Paris – was alleged to be the “George Washington of Vietnam.” Here we have a classic example of how the Left operates. Daniel Lazare is defending the Sunni terrorists in Iraq – the oppressors of the Iraq people – and pretending that he's doing it in the interest of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people – the Shiites, the Kurds, the vast majority of the Iraqi people – hate the “insurgents” that we're fighting in Fallujah, but the American Left is choosing that side, the terrorists’ side, of this war.

Michael Medved: Okay, Daniel Lazare?

Daniel Lazare: Are you aware, David, that the other Nazis routinely referred to members of the French Underground as terrorists during World War II?

Michael Medved: Wait, are you just comparing….? We have to take a break. When we come back, Daniel Lazare, I want you to think very carefully about whether you want to compare the people in Fallujah, who do regularly blow up Americans, civilians, schoolchildren, power plants, women, and children, if you want to compare those people to the French resistance to the Nazis, which you just did. If Daniel Lazare stays with that, I'll be surprised, but I've been surprised before. We'll be right back with David Horowitz, author of Unholy Alliance, and Daniel Lazare.

Read the whole thing. (BTW, rather than withdraw the analogy, Lazare reiterates and extends it.)

On the other hand, maybe they just get along

Julian Borger today has an interesting piece in today’s Guardian about the strangely affectionate relationship between George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, a relationship that has been fostered since they were appointed by GWB to together head up US relief efforts for last Christmas’ Asian tsunami disaster. Unfortunately he spoils what is an otherwise interesting and amusing piece by attempting to add an intriguing political/psychological dimension to it, suggesting, in all seriousness, that George Sr. is acting out of some sort of resentment of George Jr.

After detailing the weird camaraderie that has grown between Clinton and Bush Sr., Borger engages in deep thinking (if one can characterize going off the deep end as deep thinking.)

Bush does not emote lightly, and there seems no doubt that the affection is genuine. But before this portrait of twilight-years bonhomie dissolves entirely into soft focus, it is worth remembering that these are two lifelong partisans, who appreciate the political nuance of every action. To put it another way, if this high-profile friendship was politically damaging, both men would find another golf partner.

For Clinton, the political benefits are obvious. As he seeks some sort of international statesman role, and his wife seeks the presidency, it can only do good to be seen as non-partisans hobnobbing with the political opposition. But for Bush Sr. “the political calculus is more complicated.” Borger rejects the notion that Sr. is helping to “round off” Jr.’s more sharpened edges.

Americans have long been aware of a sharp distinction between Bush the elder and Bush the younger. What the father does, and who he spends time with, tells them nothing about the son.

After going through the litany of ways in which Jr.’s presidency is essentially a “negation of his father” (a reasonable assessment, BTW), including a little anecdote in which Jr. apparently dissed dad in favor of a “higher father”, Borger tells us that Sr. has “struck some blows of his own” against Jr.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, his former national security adviser and closest political confidant, Brent Scowcroft, warned of "an armageddon in the Middle East" if the administration pushed ahead with its invasion plans.

I can almost see the secret meeting up in Kennebunkport as Sr. arranged for his minion Scowcroft to undermine his son’s policies.

Worse still in the eyes of the president's partisans, George senior conferred his annual award for public service in 2003 on Senator Ted Kennedy, arguably the administration's fiercest and most effective critic in Congress.

Wasn’t that not too long after Jr. himself stood on stage praising Kennedy over their work together? Never mind. Borger is thinking deep thoughts.

It is not hard to see the blossoming and heartfelt camaraderie with Clinton in the same light. It serves as a reminder to the American public that there was a time when the country was not so divided and was run by a president who preferred cooperation to confrontation. It could well be the smiling revenge for a son's political betrayal, in a family drama crying out for the stage and screen.

Not content to leave us with this ridiculous psychobabble, Borger finshes by serving up this howler:

As Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton White House aide, [and fellow Guardian columnist – ed] succinctly puts it: "The father has found a good son, the fatherless son has found a good father."

I'm at a loss for words.

More Guardian nonsense

In addition to Simon Tisdale, The Guardian’s Timothy Garton Ash also weighed in yesterday on President Bush’s Tuesday speech. While not quite as empty of substance as Tisdale, Ash demonstrates that he still doesn’t quite understand America.

Ash claims that, in returning to America after six months, he has discovered a new “sobriety”, by which he means simply that he thinks people are starting to think like him. Apparently only the tipsy, or perhaps the outright drunk, could possibly disagree with his views on Iraq. Citing Bush’s approval ratings, he congratulates America, with typical Guardianesque condescension, for finally facing up to the “reality” that Iraq is a “massive blunder”, informing his fellow European sophisticates that it turns out most Americans can’t, after all, be fooled most of the time...even by the dreaded FOX News.

But the one who has been fooled is Ash. Not, that is, in the seriousness with which Americans take the situation in Iraq, but rather in his understanding of all that has come before.

In listing the indications of this “new sobriety”, Ash says:

First of all, neocons are no longer calling the shots. As a well-informed Washingtonian tells me, the nominations of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank and John Bolton to be ambassador to the UN actually show they have been kicked upstairs.

The idea that the dreaded “neocons” were ever “calling the shots”, or that the term “neocon” was even coherently understood, has always been more legend than fact, propagated by a left in search of an ideological bogeyman on which to target its venom. But look at the Cabinet departures from Bush’s first term in office, effected in January. Who among his departing advisors could accurately be called a “neocon”? Indeed, the most notable change, replacing the dovish Colin Powell with the more hawkish Condoleeza Rice, could hardly be deemed an indication that the proponents of Iraqi liberation were falling out of favor. And citing the nomination of John Bolton as an indication that the “neocons” are being kicked upstairs is especially foolish. Who ever thought that Bolton, who worked under Colin Powell, was “calling the shots” anyway?

Ash continues:

There is little talk now of proud unilateralism and America winning the Gwot on its own. Everyone stresses the importance of allies.

Again, Ash has been fooled by the rhetoric of the left, for there was never any talk, from the Bush administration anyway, of “proud unilateralism”. If Ash had been listening to the administration itself, rather than simply accepting the characterizations of its critics, it would not come as a surprise to him, nor would it appear as a change in policy, to find Bush stressing the importance of allies. He always has. The refusal of other countries to work with the US ought not be confused with a US refusal to seek the support of other countries.

On Iran, which even six months ago threatened to become a new Iraq crisis, the US is letting the so-called E3 - Britain, France and Germany - take the diplomatic lead.Even with the election of a hardline Iranian president, military options are not being seriously canvassed.

When were such options ever being “seriously canvassed"? Again, the left has certainly long-been accusing the US of planning a “neocon” invasion of Iran, but there has been nothing in the Bush administration posture to suggest it was ever under serious consideration. Again, Ash has been fooled into thinking the rhetoric of his cohorts is an accurate representation of reality, and presents his stumble upon the truth as evidence that his political opponents are finally coming around to his way of seeing things.

And if the European diplomacy with Iran does not work, what is Washington's plan B? To take the issue to the United Nations! What a difference three years make.

Apparently Ash has never heard of UN resolutions 1441, 1483, 1490, 1500, 1511 and 1546 all of which were passed, with US support, by the UN with regard to Iraq in the last 3 years. Nor must he have heard of this, this, this, or this, all resolutions put forward by the United States itself in an attemtp to engage the UN in the process, also within the last three years.

Of course, Ash doesn’t want you to get the wrong idea. He still thinks Americans, or at least Republicans, are embarrassingly unaware.

One is still gobsmacked by things American Republicans say. Take the glorification of the military, for example. In his speech, Bush insisted "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces". What? No higher calling! How about being a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, an aid worker? Unimaginable that any European leader could say such a thing.

I suppose it may well be unimaginable, which is probably why it fell to the US to spend 40 years and untold billions defending Europe during the Cold War. Such a virtue, that European disdain for the military. But really, who can take seriously a man who is “gobsmacked” by the notion that a national leader, speaking in front of a military audience and trying to rally the support of his fellow citizens, might suggest that serving one’s country during a time of war is among the most noble tasks one can undertake? Talk about embarrassing.

Ultimately he proves that, in addition to his misunderstandings of the past, he can’t even understand what Bush is saying now.

Then he made this extraordinary statement: "To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban - a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends."

Ash thinks this rather sensible sounding goal is “extraordinary” because, prior to the invasion, he says there were no terrorists in Iraq.

This is like a man who shoots himself in the foot and then says: "We must prevent it turning gangrenous, then you'll understand why I was right to shoot myself in the foot."

No, it isn’t. Bush wasn’t trying to explain “why he was right”. He was explaining what we must do. Although his critics, who think there couldn’t possibly be any justification for liberating Iraq, continually focus on the past, Bush is looking forward, something that his critics seem averse to discussing at all.

Again, as I said yesterday, a debate about what strategy should now be pursued in Iraq would be a welcome discussion. Unfortunately, we are not getting it from The Guardian, and if Ash is any indication, it is ill-equipped to provide it.

We need real criticism

The Guardian today unleashed its great minds on analysis of President Bush's Tuesday speech, including Simon Tisdale, who, not surprisingly, was not impressed. Unfortuantely, Tisdale's criticism's are almost entirely empty. After raising the inevitable and tired objections to Bush mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath (note to Simon - it is possible for 9/11 to have given impetus to the action against Saddam without Saddam having to have been directly involved in 9/11), Tisdale gets to his, um, substance.

As before, he offered no way back and no joint, consensual path forward.

What does this mean, "no way back"? Back to what? Is Tisdale seriously looking for a return to the status quo ante bellum? That certainly would please Saddam, but I'm not sure about anyone else.

And a joint, consensual path forward? Joint with whom? And how in the world does a single leader offer a “consensual” solution to something? Tisdale’s criticism is devoid of substance.

Oblivious to the inherent contradiction, he vowed to defeat a weakened,
immoral enemy that was simultaneously ubiquitous and on the attack.

The only potential contradiction here is between a weakened enemy and a ubiquitous one – surely there is nothing about a weakened, immoral enemy that precludes his ability to attack. But Bush, of course, never said anything about the enemy being ubiquitous. Indeed, his rhetoric – “…defeat them abroad before they attack us at home” – is premised upon the enemy not being ubiquitous. Tisdale just invented it. Another empty criticism.

There would be no timetable for a withdrawal, he said, despite claims that the American presence is the main problem. Nor would there be an unpopular, but arguably necessary, increase in troop numbers until Iraq's post-Saddam institutions were secured.

This is, of course, Tisdale trying to have it both ways. How can an increase in the US troop presence be “necessary” if it is the American presence that is “the main problem”? But Tisdale hides behind weasel words. It’s not he who thinks the American presence is the problem, of course, it is “claims” from the ether which suggest it. And Tisdale can’t say for sure that troop increases are necessary, only that it is “arguable” that they are. Not only is Tisdale’s critique incoherent, it is cowardly.

Then Tisdale even has the gall to claim that it is Bush’s advisors who are fostering domestic political hostility.

Off-stage, Mr Bush's chief adviser, Karl Rove, was busily drawing divisive domestic battlelines, lambasting Democrats and other "liberals" who he said wanted "to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers".

Is it possible that Tisdale is so astonishingly ignorant of American politics that he is unaware of what the Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has been saying in the last 6 months? Dean has at various times called Republicans “evil”, “corrupt”, and “brain dead”, and claimed that Republican voters have “never made an honest living in their lives.” But Tisdale would have you believe that it is Rove who is drawing divisive domestic battlelines? If ignorance is not to blame for this ludicrous judgement, then surely it must be contempt for the intelligence of his audience.

Ultimately what Tisdale finds “most telling” is that Bush just won’t grovel for forgiveness for what Tisdale perceives as his sins.

Most tellingly, Mr Bush once again refused to admit any mistakes before, during or after the 2003 invasion.There would be no raking over the past, Dan Bartlett, his communications director, insisted. In other words, Mr Bush does wars. He does freedom and he does democracy, as defined in Washington. But he does not do apologies.

Does such adolescent whining really pass for incisive political analysis these days at The Guardian? I mean really. In the first place, the failure to itemize in a speech one’s missteps is not a “refusal” to admit mistakes. (And to do so would be stupid politics.) Secondly, can Tisdale name a single politician in history who has “apologized” for undertaking an ongoing policy? The only thing “telling” about Tisdale’s observation is that Bush is a normal politician…and Tisdale is a petty ankle-biter.

Which is unfortunate. There are certainly aspects of the current situation which are worth debating. For instance, should Bush set a timetable to begin withdrawal? He certainly has a point that, to do so could embolden the insurgents to simply hold out. On the other hand, it is also true that, in the absence of a known time at which the cord will be cut, the Iraqi security forces could have little incentive to stop relying on US troops. A discussion of the relative merits of the two strategies would be interesting and could be enlightening. If there are alternative strategies to Bush's "hold the course", I wouldn't mind hearing them.

But unfortuantely that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Ironically, despite the harping that Bush has "no solutions" to the "disaster" in Iraq, it is critics such as Tisdale that are avoiding a substantive discussion of where we go from here, while remaining content to offer up empty criticism, petty political sniping, and demands for meaningless apologies for perceived sins of the past.