Fox News Lite - all the slant you could ever hope for.

(I thought this link from that post was particularly enlightening.)

I watched a wee bit of 18 Tory Street last night and it wasn't an enjoyable experience (quite apart from the fact that the "live stream" stuttered like Arkwright replying to a request for discount). They were talking about multiculturalism. Fox News Lite was exactly what it looked like.

The Sun's front page on Tuesday was quite something. Obsolete says what I thought when I saw it (but better and with links).

Blowback Redux

There's a good article over at CiF on the possibility that Ahmadinejad is on his way out.

I'm going to flesh out the comment I left there to address a couple of points.

Those arguing that Ahmadinejad current position demonstrates the success of Bush's confrontational approach are being marvellously selective in their analysis. As I've already said, any realistic assessment of Bush's approach to Iran should start with the "axis of evil" speech in 2002. At that time, Iran's President was Khatami, a relative moderate who introduced the concept of "Dialogue Among Civilizations".

After the invasion of Iraq and in the face of continuing hostile rhetoric, Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005. Now, there are signs that Iran's Supreme Leader is getting ready to dump Ahmadinejad. At best, another reformer similar to Khatami will take his place. More likely, it'll be a traditional Islamic conservative.

At very best, Iran in 2007 will be a bit like it was in 2002 when the sabre rattling started. And Iran's Supreme Leader, who has a lot more power than the President, has been the same all the way through. Only by deliberately selecting evidence to fit your theory could you argue that Bush's actions have been successful. If Bush had agreed to the proposed dialogue with Khatami back in 2003, then things might have been different.

(On a slight tangent, Ahmadinejad's rise and fall are both partly explained by domestic Iranian issues, particularly the economy. It is amusing to see the way this is played up and/or down to fit the theory. Support for Ahmadinejad in 2005 was caused by domestic issues, not the hostile posture of the U.S. government. Waning support in 2007 is caused by that same hostility, not his failure to deliver on the promises he made on domestic issues. Hmm, a model of consistency there... In reality, there's a bit of both in both.)

On the other side, those arguing that Ahmadinejad is just misunderstood are mistaken. Leaving aside the recent barrage of anti-Iran propaganda (*waves at Con Coughlin*) Ahmadinejad is still not one of the good guys. He's a liability to the Iranian people and most Iranians realise that. He's on his way out, a good thing for the people of Iran, unless Bush and co. launch a military attack and rally Iranians behind their President.

For anyone who doubts this would happen, look at Bush's popularity among Americans post-9/11. After the attacks, his approval ratings jumped by about 30%. People from all sides of the political spectrum were lining up to express their support for the President. A similar thing will happen if the U.S. takes military action against Iran.

But most Iranians do not share the views of their current President. The anti-Western sentiment caused by the CIA sponsored coup against Mossadegh in 1953 and the subsequent British and American support for the Shah is still strong but it does not have the resonance it once did. For most of Iran's relatively youthful population, the coup was a long time ago.

Now, as Iran's well educated young population looks to move their country forwards, Bush's hostility threatens to create a whole new wave of anti-American sentiment. Unsurprisingly, Bush and his advisers have learnt nothing from the years of self-serving Western support for the Shah and the enormous blowback which it caused.

Who Wants To Be President?

The other day, while watching Blair make a bad job of delivering a televised speech, I was struck by one thought; that's it, he's finished. I was just about to articulate this when the other person in the room turned to me and said "he's finished, isn't he?"

Thursday's QT saw Matthew Parris say "I honestly think that he's losing his reason" to much applause. Parris pointed out that Blair's refusal to attend the Iraq debate in parliament was far more damaging than anything that could have happened to him if he'd attended the debate. I doubt there's more than a handful of Labour Party member in the whole country who would disagree. Leaving aside the morals of it, avoiding the debate was an absolutely awful political judgement. He's lost it.

Over at Blairwatch, Tom asks if Tony is fit to govern. I wonder if even his closest supporters could look you in the eye and tell you that he is.

But the Labour Party, aware that he's going soon and worried about creating a scene, are now content to let him have his final few months. Why they think that it's a kindness to Blair or to the Labour Party to allow this shell of a man to continue as leader is one of life's little mysteries. The Tories are the only one's who're actually going to benefit.

Tom picked out a quotation from Blair's interview with Jon Soppel:

I won an election in 2005.

This isn't a further sign that he has lost it; it's been clear for a long time that Blair has no respect for the conventions of British parliamentary democracy. He's thought of himself as Presidential in even his most rational moments. In the U.K, we elect a parliament of MPs and everything else is built on that. Blair's inability to understand that fundamental principle (and its implications) was one of his greatest failings.

It is interesting to note that Blair Lite appears to think exactly the same way. Voters did not vote for Blair at the last general election just as they won't vote for Dave in the next one. If the boy wonder wants to be elected President, he should say so and start campaigning for a new constitutional arrangement.

Instead, he appears to have accepted Blair's doctrine. Rather than promising to repair parliamentary democracy, he accepts that Blair's abuse of the unwritten rules of the current system has created a Presidential Prime Minister and he wants to be the next one at the earliest opportunity.

But what about Brown? I don't have the faintest idea what he thinks. Between the Blairite spinning against him, the Brownite spinning for him and his own supine acquiescence and his endless positioning to keep Blair onside, it is impossible to know.

If Brown's refuses to hold an early election, especially if Labour goes through a boost in the polls when he takes over and it looks like they could win, this could, perhaps bizarrely, be a demonstration of his commitment to British parliamentary democracy. A snap election during a poll bounce, on the other hand, would be cynical indeed.

Either way, Brown's continuing involvement in the Blair government means that he already has a whole lot of baggage to contend with. It'll take a lot more than a few headline grabbing initiatives to shake that legacy off his back. To be honest, I can't see how it can be done.

I know this is fanciful but wouldn't it be great if democracy was about more than just choosing the least worst option?

This week's Scottish blog roundup is out compiled by guest host, holyroodwatcher. Good stuff.

A Diplomatic Solution

Newsday: The misunderstood Islamic divide

In what is viewed here as another example of the Bush administration's flawed understanding of basic forces in the Middle East, the president in his State of the Union address Tuesday lumped together Shia and Sunni militant groups as posing the same threat to America.

"The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat," President George W. Bush said. "They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale."

ABC News: Potential New Evidence of Iran Providing Weapons to Iraqi Insurgents

Out of all the enemies the United States faces in Iraq, the most troubling ones come from Iran, and according to U.S. officials, the Pentagon will soon present evidence that Iran is providing deadly weapons to insurgents.

Washington Post: Bush OKs Countering Iranians in Iraq

President Bush has authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take whatever actions are necessary to counter Iranian agents deemed a threat to American troops or the public at large, the White House said Friday.

"It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said. "It's an obligation we all have ... to protect our folks and achieve our goal."

New York Post: How to Fight Iran

THE American carrier the USS John Stennis and its strike group are headed to the Persian Gulf to join another carrier group in a show of force meant to make Iran rethink its nuclear program. It may be a prelude to war.

The conventional wisdom is that there are "no good options" in dealing with Iran. Most commentators see one of two scenarios, both nightmares: a large, bloody and expensive ground invasion and occupation that would cause oil to spike through the roof or a monthslong aerial bombardment of Iran's estimated 1,500 nuclear-related targets that would trigger a worldwide terrorist backlash. (Alternately, the Israelis could do it for us and set the Middle East ablaze.)

Yet there is a third option, of which our show of force with two carrier groups could be the opening move: a naval and air campaign to topple the ayatollahs without a single U.S. soldier's setting foot on Iranian soil.

Front Page: Constitutional Authority to Attack Iran

It may be too much to expect George W. Bush to be another FDR, but it is not too much to hope that our current President will emulate Harry Truman—who dropped two atomic bombs in order to end the war in the Pacific and prevent countless more American deaths, and who knew that the buck stops in the Oval Office.

Bush has denied that he intends to take military action against Iran itself. He said that it was "a presumption that's simply not accurate".

On 10th March 2003 Blair wrote that "no decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq".

On 12th March 2003, he again wrote that "no decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq".

On 14th March 2003, he wrote that "no decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken".

On 18th March 2003, he asked the House of Commons to rubber stamp his decision to go to war.

The war started on 20th March.

Just to be clear, it is impossible to be sure of Bush's intentions but it seems unlikely that an attack on Iran is days away.

But it should also be borne in mind that any U.S. attack on Iran would be different to the invasion of Iraq. As a ground invasion is not an option, there wouldn't be the need for a long build up to manoeuvre troops into position. Much of the equipment and manpower needed to launch an air attack is already in place and the second American carrier group will arrive in the region in a matter of weeks. And faced with an unfriendly Congress, Bush is highly unlikely to seek Congressional approval in advance. The actual attack, if/when it comes, is likely to come out of the blue.

For all the differences, all the sign are that public opinion is being prepared for some sort of military action against Iran just as it was before the invasion of Iraq.

It's all just a bit of a laugh

Like many others, the thought of John Reid becoming Prime Minister fills me with horror. I'm not a gambler myself but it does seem that the odds of it happening are pretty slim. Brown is odds on to become the next Labour leader and Reid is in a very distant second place.

As Mike Smithson notes, it is interesting that Reid's still second favourite at all given the way the tabloid press, and the Scum in particular, have decided to go after him. To my mind, that's a sign of just how impoverished the Labour Party has become under Blair. His insistence on a Presidential style government in which all the major decisions go through him - Brown's relative independence, secured in the infamous deal, aside - has damaged the ability other members of the party to develop as credible candidates to succeed him. The unintended consequence of Blair's centralist approach, it's legacy if you like, is that there really isn't a credible challenger to Brown. I think we all know what Blair thinks about that.

(Just in case you don't, remember that before there was an alleged plot by Brownites to depose Blair, there was an actual plot by Blairites to undermine the Chancellor and push Alan Johnson as the next PM!)

Mike concludes, rightly in my opinion, that that Reid will definitely not be elected as the next Labour leader. The Scum shows every intention of continuing their search for Reid's brain until any credibility he might have had is destroyed.

The fact that Reid is hugely unlikely to become the next Prime Minister makes me happy.

But does this mean that I'm grateful to Rupert Murdoch and the traitor for taking him down? Does this mean I'm now going to reconsider my opinion of these unscrupulous manipulators of public opinions? Should I now be not be quite so worried that Murdoch uses his power and influence to promote his own self-serving right-wing agenda while employees of his disingenuous rag pretend that it's all just a bit of a laugh?

No, obviously not; your enemy's enemy is not always your friend.

In conclusion, for reasons which should become increasingly obvious if you click through, here's a link to a post on he who speaks only in the third person. Hamster finds himself in full agreement...

More on Con

After yesterday's post on the man, I've just noticed that Con Coughlin is under investigation by the Press Complaints Commission. It'll be interesting to see whether anything comes of that.

I failed to mention yesterday that Con's article just happened to appear the morning after Bush's State of the Union address. It too was hostile towards Iran.

Unsurprisingly, my comment on his "blog" yesterday didn't make it past the moderators. It was only a question about his sources.

There is, however, a textbook screed on "appeasement" (by Sun Tzu of all people) just where my comment should be. It was written roughly half an hour after I posted my comment but that might just be a coincidence (Note - that isn't sarcasm, it may very well be a coincidence). Here it is in any event:

Hey no big deal all we have to do is talk. All we have to do is to look back at history. Remember he who does not know history will repeat it.

On 29th September, 1938, Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement which transferred to Germany the Sudetenland, a fortified frontier region that contained a large German-speaking population.

In March, 1939, the German Army seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. In taking this action Adolf Hitler had broken the Munich Agreement.

Now we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Hitler) and Kim Jong il (Mussolini) of N Korea playing the same game all over again.

Now you think we should all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"….It looks like the lights are on but no one is home. Ignorance is bliss.

”If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Sun Tzu (6th–5th century B.C.), Chinese general. The Art of War, ch. 3, Axiom 18 (c. 490 B.C., ed. by James Clavell, 1981).

Wake the hell up before you find yourself and your family simply ashes blowing in the wind.

Crikey. That really is top class string pulling there.

Fortunately, FlyingRodent recently reminded me that Larry had looked into the history of appeasement in some detail.

One other point worth noting. I couldn't help but notice that Con didn't manage to get anyone from the government to provide a quotation on his "story" for today's paper. In fact, the only politician Con managed to find to quote today was Conservative MP James Arbuthnot. He apparently found the report "deeply disturbing".

So did I mate but probably not for quite the same reasons.

In praise of proper light relief.

Totally agree. Meant to post about it during the first series but never got round to it. Get it!

That Con Man Again

As some readers may know, The Telegraph's Con Coughlin has something of a history when it comes to spreading the unsubstantiated claims of the security services and hiding the real source of the story from his readers. In a story about Colonel Gadafy's son, he wrote that the story had been supplied to him by a "British banking official" when he meant to write that it had been supplied by "MI6 agents". It is impossible to say whether he deliberately misled his readers; perhaps he has a faulty keyboard.

The truth of this only came to light when the Telegraph, in hot water because they couldn't substantiate their claim in court, was forced to admit the real source of the story.

With that in mind, Con has been making a lot of noise today about a connection between North Korea and Iran. His article on the subject is on the front page of the Telegraph. Links to an opinion piece and a pretend blog post are also featured on the Telegraph's interwebs. (What chance do you think my comment on Con's "blog" has of making it past the moderator?) The Telegraph also ran a leader on the story.

Con also appeared on the Today programme this morning to repeat the claims. (Thanks to J for the link.)

Con's source is "a senior European defence official".

Hmm...

Before giving any credence whatsoever to Con's assertions, it may be be a good idea to see whether anyone from the British government is prepared to go on the record to confirm these claims.

Remember, Bush never explicitly claimed that Saddam was involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks. The administration used implication and spin to send the message. Friendly journalists were encouraged and/or exploited to make claims which the administration knew they themselves couldn't substantiate.

Back in 2002, one journalists was taken to task by Warren Bass, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, for publishing a book "overblowing Iraq's link to the war on terrorism". The author of the book made a number of claims which didn't stand up to scrutiny or were based on dubious unidentified sources. Can you guess which journalist it was?

Pedantic note: It's not MI6, it's SIS. I've used MI6 because that's what was used in the article.

"Guido" misses an open goal.

Oh dear.

Why now?

Tony Blair's answer to the House of Commons was this:

The current Vanguard submarines have a service life of 25 years. The first boat should leave service in 2017. We can extend that for five years, so in 2022 that extension will be concluded, and in 2024 the second boat will also end its extended service life. By that time, we will have only two Vanguard submarines. That will be insufficient to guarantee continuous patrolling.

The best evidence we have is that it will take us 17 years to design, build and deploy a new submarine. Working back from 2024, therefore, that means that we have to take the decision in 2007.

So the Vanguard submarine has a maximum lifespan of 30 years.

Richard Garwin (whose title may be Mr, Dr or Professor depending on who you believe) gave evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee yesterday. He said:

US Trident submarines operate two-thirds of the time at sea, the UK subs about one-quarter of the time. The lifetime of the US submarines has been extended to 45 years.

He said:

I would expect that the UK submarines, from the point of view of wear-out, would last 100 years.. I see no reason why they shouldn't last 45 years.

He said the steam generators would wear out but that they could be replaced easily and relatively cheaply.

He said:

If Britain wants to preserve a strategic nuclear choice, then taking a decision now to replace the Trident submarines is a highly premature and wasteful approach. Unless some grave error has been made in the design of the Vanguard, it should last 100 years.

So there's a problem and when it comes to matters of trust, Blair starts with an obvious disadvantage. Even if he didn't though, I'd still be inclined to believe that it's the nuclear physicist who's right.

Why now?

It might be possible to spot the answer in this article which manages to be on exactly the same subject and on an entirely different subject at exactly the same time.

(A note for clarity - the U.S. navy doesn't use the Vanguard. They have their own design, the Ohio class. Comparisons are similar for similar, not like for like.)

Remember those bloody looters? Those despicable scenes were a clear sign that the citizen of that country had no respect for law and order. Trying to build democracy there was a lost cause from day one.

Right?

There seem to be an awful lot of people who supported the Iraq war who now want to blame Iraqis for everything that's gone wrong since 2003. They seem to think that Iraqis are somehow less developed than members of the "civilised" nations.

But they don't seem to have asked themselves to consider how the citizens of the U.K. or the U.S. would behave if the authorities ability to maintain law and order completely collapsed. If you're one of those people, there's a wee clue to the answer in the link above.

Here's an example of a well-connected conservative manipulating the blogosphere's anti-establishment sentiment in order to, er, defend the establishment. And it worked.

Freedom! (to continue to spin, to manipulate, to misrepresent, to create fake grass roots, to drown out real voices with different views, and to make lots of money while doing so.)

Remind you of anyone?

Comment Settings

Bloggerheads: The De-Briefing (Guido and his political astro-turfers)

*Sticks head above parapet*

I agree with Tim.

*Ducks down again*

I really do urge you to read that post.

On a related note, I've been considering whether to turn on the registered users only option for comments here. I've never thought to do it before because I want to make it easy for people to express their opinions and because it didn't really occur to me that anyone would bother to astroturf here. I doubt anyone ever will but it might be worth taking steps to discourage it just in case.

The problem is, it's so easy to register blogger accounts, it really isn't much of a deterrent. Anyone determined enough to astroturf in this obscure corner of the interwebs is probably not going to be put off by that.

It would make this impossible though. I've got profile images turned on which would help to some extent but many people wouldn't notice that. And lots of people don't have an image saved anyway.

On reflection, because it would be so easy to pretend to be someone else with the current settings, I may well switch it on. Anyone who wants to comment can easily sign up for a blogger account. Any opinions?

And does anyone know if that'd affect comments already left by unregistered users on previous posts? I wouldn't really want them deleted.

Update

I've decided to keep things as they are for now. See comments below for details.

Dedication oh, Dedication oh, Dedication

That's what you need

Exciting news this week as Nick Cohen's strawman is widely rumoured to have reached record breaking proportions. Sources are claiming that it is now so large that it entirely obscures his view of reality.

Officials from the Brewers Book of Really Big Things were set to measure the strawman on Sunday but eventually had to admit defeat. Embarrassingly, they had not brought anything with them big enough to measure it with. In a statement, a spokeman for the famous reference work said that a custom built device was now under construction and that it may take weeks to complete.

Under questioning by our intrepid reporter, he was forced to concede that no-one had ever imagined you could build a strawman that big. He went on to stress that he could not officially confirm that a new record had been set until accurate measurements had been properly recorded.

Greatest Challenge

"The truth is, this may be one of our greatest challenges" he added.

Another attempt to measure the strawman is expected sometime in early March.

Quote of the year?

One Cabinet colleague said Blair would go of his own volition if he felt it necessary. 'The stakes are immeasurably high. But what he will never do is to be pushed. About the only circumstances in which he would say "I will call it a day" is if he really felt he was damaging the party.'

How can something so extraordinary be so unsurprising?

I've never been a member of the Labour Party (or any other political party for that matter) but there must surely be some sort of mechanism for making him understand.

Bravery in the Face of Defeat

Blair likes to praise the bravery of our troops on occasion. There are those who think this insincere but I disagree. It is often the case that those who lack a certain characteristic genuinely and sincerely admire those who have it in abundance.

He has sent others to their deaths but does not have the bravery to personally face the barrage of nasty words which might come his way in this debate. Perhaps he lacks a sense of perspective. Perhaps he thinks nasty words are more dangerous than the bullets and bombs he has ordered others to face.

I'm being facetious. It's not just nasty words. As has been obvious for a very long time now, Blair has gone to great lengths to avoid having to participate in an honest debate about Iraq. He clearly feels that such a debate would damage his reputation, his legacy and the length of his career. He undoubtedly considers putting those at risk a far more serious and troublesome undertaking than merely risking the lives of a few unimportant squadies or a few tens of thousands of Iraqis. It's a risk he's simply not prepared to take. The stakes are just too high.

He is, in short, a self-serving coward.

The fifteenth edition of the Scottish Blog Roundup is out now.

New Labour's reaction to the arrest of Ruth Turner has been quite something. These are the very same people who constantly argue that the police should be trusted with more summary powers.

Ruth Turner was arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice. It's an imprisonable offence. As such, the police had the right to take a sample of her DNA and store a record of it on their DNA database. Because of the arrest, the police now have the authority store her DNA on the database permanently even if she is never charged with any offence.

I wonder if they did?