±«Óãtv

Earlier I read an interview with him online and I was greatly impressed with much of what he had to say. Look forward to hearing the interview!

Everybody seems to think Reason needs defending at the moment!

The Assault on Reason, by Al Gore
There's a review in this weeks New Scientist.

part quote
By "reason", Gore doesn't simply mean argumentation based on logic and evidence. He means the entire Enlightenment project of forging constitutional democracies based on checks and balances, the rule of law and a free-thinking citizenry able to debate the issues and vote knowledgeably. And so Gore's critique includes the Bush administration's assaults on privacy, individual liberties and the balance of power. One might object that Gore is using an over-expansive definition of "reason" to do his intellectual dirty work. Such quibbles, however, seem beside the point as Gore bloodies the administration with a polemic of intense and sustained passion. A typical passage: "It is the president's reactionary ideology, not his religious faith, that is the source of his troubling inflexibility... He is, in fact, out of touch with reality, and his recklessness risks the safety and security of the American people."

Unable to wait until Sunday even with baited breath, I decided to read another interview which begins here;

It is in five parts all but one of which is linked on the bottom. Part 4 is linked in the text of part 5.

Dan Hind is in my opinion a dangerously confused man who twists facts and distorts logic to come to his preordained conclusions, thinking which sadly is typical of mainstream Eurosocialism and left wing lunatic fringe American views.

"It won't come as a great surprise that I admire Noam Chomsky a great deal"

No it doesn't, Hind and Chomsky could be clones of each other. Loony birds of a feather, flock together.

"What was the Enlightenment? That's big question! Put neutrally it was a period of philosophical and political upheaval between the Glorious Revolution in Britain and the French Revolution around a century later. If I had to give a more substantial definition, I'd say it was a collection of attempts to describe the world more accurately, by replacing dogma with experiment and open debate."

"a number of movements consciously or implicitly reject the ideas that we associate with the Enlightenment; most spectacularly some religious fundamentalists insist that science cannot challenge the authority of scripture. More complicatedly, postmodern philosophers have sometimes seemed to argue that Enlightenment universalism is only ever a cover for imperialist land grabs."

"In my book I argue that the enlightened inheritance really is under threat and that it should be defended"

There is a lot more than enlightment which is under threat, the very existance of our civilization is in grave jeopardy directly as the result of Moslem extremists who will use any means regardless of the consequences to anyone to destroy it and replace it with their own. How do I know? I don't have to guess or infer, they say it clearly, explicitly, repeatedly themselves and their actions prove that they mean what they say.

"Certainly our rulers have become more authoritarian since 9/11. What surprises me is the ease with which they have been able to claim that their project was in some way enlightened."

Survival in a crisis at a time of war trumps democracy. So far American constitutional guarantees have only been eroded at the fringes for a relative handful of people. After the next attack, they may disappear altogether temporarily or permanently. The Constitution is not and was never intended as a suicide pact. If a free and open society such as America's cannot survive becaue its very freedom has become a fatal flaw in an age of WMDs, then something far more sinister will replace it.

"MT: The current political climate seems to suggest that every single Muslim in the world is potentially bad and evil and that our brave politicians will wage a war without end against them"

An absurd assumption by the interviewer. The wars up to now have been waged with great pains to make a distinction between Moslem terrorists and other Moslems. That is a distinction many in the general population at least in America do not make. Subsequent to another attack, the government may not be able to contain public rage against all of Islam as it desperately tried to after 9-11.

"Isolated incidents and a tiny minority of extremists can be made to define whole communities, if the conditions are right."

9-11 was just such an incident. The public reaction in the US was spontaneous. Not only didn't the government promote it, it tried its best to contain and squelch it. Moslems in the US are justifiably fearful and would do well to continue to expose all those they suspect of being terrorists. Only by preventing another attack can they remain safe from the general population here.

"MT: Is the War on Terror a racist war, an imperialist war or something else?"

"DH: Well, last week ±«Óãtv radio referred to 'the so-called War on Terror'. That was a bit of a breakthrough, though it happened before the recent run of scares"

±«Óãtv always referred to the War on Terror as the "so called War on Terror." The correct answer would have been, no, not yet anyway.

"We do know that the prime movers in the Iraq invasion were a coalition of imperialists and militarists who were in a hurry to exploit America's 'unipolar' moment. They were backed by a network of institutional interests who could see the benefits of a move to a war footing"

Left wing anti American rhetoric with no basis in fact. The real facts are clear, the US government felt under threat. Putin warned Bush of an imminent attack by Iraq on the US. Blair believed the British Intelligence "dodgy dossier" why shouldn't the CIA and the Bush administration have believed it too? There were many reasons to suspect Saddam Hussein had WMDs and every major intelligence agency in the world believed it. 9-11 happened because the US failed to connect the dots. When there were dots missing about Iraq's capabilities, US intelligence assumed the worst and connected to paint the worst possible scenario, then the government acted on it... including most Democrats in Congress who now disavow it. President Bush never said an attack by Iraq was imminent, he said very clearly that the US feared a Nexus would develop between Al Qaeda and Iraq and wasn't going to wait for it to materialize. The decision to attack was correct and was delayed until the very last possible moment when changing weather conditions would have made combat in chemical weapons protective gear impossible. As it was the dust storms were a real problem.

"Forty percent of America's tax income is spent on defence; that kind of money can change your life, or end it if you are in the wrong place."

You can take that threat to the bank. Under the worng circumstances, any place can be the wrong place, there are no truely safe hiding places for America's enemies if it sufficiently determined to find and kill them. It is a sobering thought for example that from its sanctuary deep under the ocean, any one of twelve active US Ohio class submarines could burn down an entire continent like Europe in one hour.

"Some people might really think that Greenpeace is a more serious menace to public understanding than, say, Exxonmobil. Well, that's up to them. I think most people can see that a large transnational energy company is more likely to be able to estrange us from reality than a relatively tiny NGO."

If Greenpeace and its like disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, the world wouldn't so much as hiccup. If Exxon and its like were to shut down, we'd all be back living in the stone age in no time.

"Well the pharmaceutical companies do put profits ahead of people and countless people have died as a result of this profit orientation."

How many people died as the result of quackery of folk medicine or homeopathy who could have been saved by use of drugs developed by pharmaceutical companies? Infinitely more than died from pharmaceutical products that were misrepresented. Do folk remedies have any value? Some do, some have some value, some are worthless (probably most) and some are downright dangerous. Only through scientific investigation can the wheat be separated from the chaff. As for non profit based pharmaceutical companies, what drugs of any value ever emerged from a socialist nation? How many useful cancer treatment drugs did the USSR give the world in 72 years?

"They will also deceive the public if it serves their interests and they can get away with it. Now I don't propose to know what to do about this fact about corporations, but it is a fact."

Simple, we pass laws requiring full disclosure and enforce them when they are broken. That's how democracy works.

This guy is a kook. He's in good company on his side of the pond. In Britain, I'm sure George Holloway would see the world his way. So would most in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, in short "old Europe." Of all the Moslems ever killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, far more were killed by other Moslems than by Americans. Maybe we can't impose democracy on Afghanistan or Iraq or other Moslem nations but given a chance to vote voluntarily, many millions of them risked their lives, over ten million three times in Iraq and who was it who tried to stop it by killing them? The very people Dan Hind and his like tell us we sholdn't be fighting or afraid of.

The ±«Óãtv is RIGHT to use the expression "so-called war of terror". It's not a war.

This looks like a fascinating book and guy.

"He argues that the so-called 'war on terror' is often portrayed as a clash between Enlightenment thinking and pre-Enlightenment thinking..."

I'm interested in why you used "so-called" here William; do you have a better way to describe it, or do you doubt that it is in fact a war on terror? Maybe it's simply become too cliché for you?

In any case it is what it is no matter the semantics used to describe it. If the terrorists who currently threaten the West do so with regard to something other than 'reason' (and they do) then yes, it's a clash between Enlightenment and pre-Enlightenment thinking. Enlightened people being threatened by the unenlightened. :-) Only unreasonable thinking could produce a suicide bomber of the kind we associate with Al Qaeda. I don't see that as a big revelation, though it certainly would be for some western liberals.

David Devlin #4- What is it then?

It's not a war. A war is a conflict between two nations. This is a series of terrorist attacks.

That guy MArk writes off Chomsky very casually, doesn't he? One of the greatest thinkers of our day. What have you done for the world Mark?

"I'm interested in why you used "so-called" here William; do you have a better way to describe it, or do you doubt that it is in fact a war on terror? Maybe it's simply become too cliché for you?"

A Republican US Senator made what I thought a most excellent point the other week. Governments like labelling things as "wars" because it increases it's power and influence and silences dissent. So we have "War on Poverty", "War on drugs" and "War on terror".

The "so-called "war on terror"" is a hard and fast reality, which may be unpleasant to the liberal press but is an unescapable truth.

8. At 11:15 PM on 20 Jul 2007, Alice M wrote:
"That guy MArk writes off Chomsky very casually, doesn't he? One of the greatest thinkers of our day. What have you done for the world Mark?"

Among many things....I help Alan Dirschawitz expose Noam Chomsky for the fraud and liar that he really is. He's an intellectual snake oil salesman who uses his skills as a linguist to persuade people that black is white.

Andrew Marr beat you to it Will!

/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml

Hear Dan Hind in the last ten minutes of this week's Start the Week.
The rest of the prog is worth listening to to!! tutu!!

Mark- the least you could do is spell Alan Dershowitz's name properly! Dershowitz has done nothing to discredit Chomsky. I have followed their on-going feud for many years and I can tell you that Dershowitz has not shown Chomsky to be a fraud! Whether you want to admit it or not, Dershowitz is a staunch defender of all things Jewish and Israeli! He has defended some events which are indefensible in the eyes of most people! You have got to keep this in mind when you listen to Dershowitz, as you do with Chomsky's own biases of course! I don not agree with everything Chomsky or Dershowitz say, however both have made interesting points on mnay issues! However its seems obvious that a personal hatred of Chomsky has clouded your judgement! To call Chomsky a complete and utter liar, inferring that he has not made valid points about politics and conflict in the world, highlights your own particular biases! It is for that reason that I cant take you seriously!

For anyone interested, here is Chomksy's side of the debate!

By the way, Dershowitz's ridiculous attack on Dr Israel Shahak, the Israeli Human Rights activist, will open you eyes to what he is like when it comes to the defense of Israel!

Joe #13
So typical of Chomsky's lies is this posting of his. And typical too is his twisting and distorting words to make them appear what they aren't but then what would you expect from a linguist at his dirty work. The biggest lie of all is that Israel and the world do not acknowledge that it is in a perpetual state of war with much of the Islamic world just as the US refuses to acknowledge that it is in a perpetual state of war with Al Qaeda and Iran. Both try to create an illusion of normality and when violence breaks out in one place or another, in one way or another, it is taken in complete isolation from the bigger picture. In this context, Chomsky's description of the Muamar brothers whom he characterizes as "civilians" is laughable. They have a clear connection with Hamas, an organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and it is very plausible that they are the terrorists Israel says they are. In short they are combatants.

It's nothing new that Israel targeted them, what was unusual was that they were captured alive in Gaza rather than killed by a missile or some other attack. To equate the capture of two terrorists who plot the murder of actual civilians in Israel with the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier in uniform is of course an absurdity. While the Arabs living in the occupied territories and Israel were never at peace, there was supposed to be a sort of cease fire contingent on the Arabs detaining terrorists in exchange for Israeli withdrawls, ultimately land and an eventual Palestinian state but neither Arafat nor his successors ever lived up to their part of the bargain.

I did get to the part where Chomsky accused the Israelis of wanting to "destroy the Palestinian Nation" again another linguistic invention and an absurdity as no such thing ever existed. In fact had the 1967 war never occurred, territory on the west bank of the Jordan River would in all likelihood still be part of the nation of Jordan, Gaza still ruled by Egypt, the Golan Heights still part of Syria, and Jerusalem still part of Jordan and off limits to Jews. The term Palestinians, Palestinian state, and Palestinian nation would never have been invented. These canards are an attempt to justify the destruction of Israel, a nation created by and recognized by the United Nations in 1948. The tactics used by Chomsky are the tactics the political left often uses as for instance when it tried to paint an equivalence between the Soviet Union and the United States. At that point it then tries to reduce the conflict to a kind of battle of equals where each side has certain legitimate arguements it can assert over the other. A pure pack of lies.

I also read the part where Chomsky denies that the terrorists want to see Arab civilians killed by Israelis. The truth of this is demonstrated over and over again as terrorists all over the Islamic world use other Moslems as human shields hoping that if they are killed their shields will be killed as well and in becoming martyrs spawn hundreds of new terrorists outraged by their deaths at the hands of the infidels.

Chomsky doesn't merely assault the English language with his tactics, his war is on our civilization itself. I at least recognize the enemy for what he is when I see him.

"these canards are an attempt to justify the destruction of Israel"- you have to provide some evidence of this im afraid! This isnt a statement of fact obviously and it is your burden to show evidence that this is really what Chomsky or the political left want.

"his war is against civilisation itself"- same here im afraid, no evidence that this is the case! Why to you think that? What convinces you that this is the truth?

Joe #16;
As I pointed out in my previous posting, there is no basis in historical fact for a Palestinian People and therefore no justification for a Palestinian State. The demand for Israel to return to its pre 1967 borders is a demand for it to return to a militarily indefensible territory which enticed Syria, Egypt, and Jordan to launch three of the four Arab wars to destroy Israel. Yet in late 2000/early 2001, to the amazement of the world, Ehud Barach agreed in negotiations mediated by President Clinton to essentially accede almost entirely to that demand and more, even to relinquish control over Jerusalem. But Arafat balked by suddenly adding a demand for the right of return of up to five million Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel which would have demographically overwhelmed it and destroyed it had that been accepted also. Then Arafat walked out and launched his second "Intifada" or terrorist war. When Barach was interviewed on American television some years later and asked why he acceded to Arafat's territorial demand, he said it was because he knew Arafat wouldn't accept it.

The destruction of Israel is a sure fire prescription for the destruction of the rest of us whether those who hate Israel and wish to see it destroyed know it or not. It's an interesting question why during the Yom Kippur war in 1973 when it appeared Israel was about to lose, running short of ammunition and material, President Nixon who was no friend to the Jews or Israel suddenly within hours poured incredibly massive quantities of of what Israel needed to reverse the war and put the entire US military worldwide on Defcon 1 alert, imminent global thermonuclear war. I was in France at the time and to put it as delicately as possible, those around the world who understood what was happening collectively defecated in their pants. There is only one logical explanation and that is that the Israelis told the US that if it appeared they were about to be wiped out, they would use their nuclear arsenal to destroy the Arab world. That was over 30 years ago. It is estimated now that the Israelis likely have 400 or more thermonuclear weapons of their own, more than enough to wipe humanity out even if only a small portion of them were detonated at once, say in their own country. The concept of a doomsday machine postulated in the movie Dr. Strangelove is no fantasy, it is entirely plausible. What's more they have the means to deliver those weapons to a very wide range of targets and it would not surprise me if they could reach Europe with them too.

Noam Chomsky not only attacks Israel's right to exist, he is among those furious that America has been by far the most successful civilization in human history by following an ideology which is exactly the antithesis of the one he and his intellectual allies espouse. That is why every policy they advocate is designed to undo that success. And while he may be a champion to those in Europe and elsewhere who are equally jealous and contemptuous of the US and even among the extreme left here who have captured many of America's universities and colleges for the moment, within the spectrum of American political views, he is considered part of the left wing lunatic fringe, his views holding virtually no credence with the overwhelming majority of Americans, this one included.

Mark,
Previously you contemptuously dismissed any notion that you cared for anyone except your own family. Now, it is civilisation, more or less equated with the good ol’ US of A, that you are rushing to defend from perceived threats to it. Presumably you are only defending it because it benefits you yourself. So why should anyone else give a fig what you think? Why do you bother to write these long, angry, paranoid ultra right-wing rants if nobody over here knows you or cares about you?
You put the word of serial lying politicians like Bush, Blair and Cheney above writers of integrity such as Chomsky and Hind. So when Blair said there was a threat of imminent attack by Iraq, he was not lying. Come off it, man! In the UK we all know that he was LYING IN HIS TEETH. We know Blair better than you do. As for Bush, you are right to point that he didn’t argue so much about an imminent attack (presumably he knew more than Blair but wasn’t telling him, eh, Mark?). Oh no, he was more worried about a nexus between Al Qaeda and Iraq. How perspicacious of him to fear the very thing that he ensured by his actions would come about!
We all know that the Bush administration was determined on an attack on Iraq to (1) seek revenge for 9/11; (2) ‘finish the job’ left uncompleted by Bush Senior and (3) grab the oil. It had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and neither did Saddam Hussein. Blair, as Bush’s poodle, went along for the ride and anticipated reflected glory; instead it resulted in ignominy for both, with an estimated 655,000 Iraqis killed as a direct result of the invasion, the country in chaos and increased Muslim hostility to the west. Yet, alas, as you are totally blinded by your own prejudices, you are not likely to recognise the truth.
You lump together Muslim extremists, Noam Chomsky, Dan Hind (and even on another thread the ±«Óãtv) as the enemies of civilisation. Well, Muslim extremists I certainly can do without. The same is true of Christian extremists who pray to God to support them when they order immoral invasions of other countries and the killing of thousands of their people. Both are threats to ‘civilisation’. Another threat to civilisation is to see situations in black and white terms, the accusation you yourself have made of others. But you fail to follow your own warning: your take on the Arab-Israeli conflict is precisely that: a completely one-sided exoneration of Israel.
Chomsky and Hind I welcome as stimulating thinkers whom I can engage with (and sometimes disagree with). As for the ±«Óãtv, well I’ve watched a bit of CNN and Fox News, and thank goodness we in the UK have the dear old Beeb. For all its faults, it is a great institution and I trust it infinitely more than these dreadful propaganda agencies. ‘Fox New’ is an oxymoronic obscenity,

Cheers,
Brian

Brian says: "As for the ±«Óãtv, well I’ve watched a bit of CNN and Fox News, and thank goodness we in the UK have the dear old Beeb. For all its faults, it is a great institution and I trust it infinitely more than these dreadful propaganda agencies. ‘Fox New’ is an oxymoronic obscenity..." [sic]

How original, Brian. Thanks for demonstrating the old 'Good thing we have the ±«Óãtv to bring us quality unbiased news' syndrome. I haven't heard this one before. This idea is trotted out so often on liberal British blogs it's become cliché, yet amusingly dependent on the best of conjecture and anecdote. You humanists are getting even better at making arguments based on established proven fact; tragically this one's an improvement over your past efforts!

brian mcclinton #18
Glad you enjoy my postings. Not only on this blog but on so many others on ±«Óãtv's web site.

"your take on the Arab-Israeli conflict is precisely that, a one sided exoneration of Israel."

Funny how that works, I see Israel as completely justified in defending itself in any way it sees fit from a vast horde of crazy people who want to destroy it and kill off its entire population. Now doesn't that seem unfair of me?

"Presumably you are defending it (civilization and the US of A) because it benefits yourself."

Funny how that works too, I unabashedly defend my own self interests. How selfish of me. How Ayn Rand of me. Now what do you suppose would have happened if the good Ole US of A hadn't been around to defend Britain during the last three world wars? Personally, I'm not so sure Britain and the rest of Europe shouldn't be left to fend for themselves for once during World War Four. I think three strikes and you're out. There's no gratitude at all, in fact it was only last year that the UK finally paid of its war debts to the US. 60 years. If that isn't the mark of a deadbeat, I don't know what is.

Funny thing about Bush, Blair, Cheney, Chomsky and Hind. Bush, Blair and Cheney got millions of people to vote for them as their leader. In the case of Bush and Cheney over 100 million of them last time and Blair was elected for an unprecedented third term, all this after the invasion of Iraq. What did Chomsky and Hind get elected to, standing up in front of a lecture hall to rant their rants and then elected by a publisher to write about it? When Chomsky's kind run for office in the US, they don't get even one percent of the votes. So it looks like the people have spoken. You do believe in democracy don't you?

So Blair knew the dossier was dodgy and attacked Iraq anyway. Did Bush also know it was dodgy? How could he, it was prepared by British intelligence, not the CIA. And I suppose Putin's warning to Bush about Iraq planning an attack on the US was also a fraud Bush knew about all along. But if Blair knew the dossier was false and Bush didn't, who was whose poodle? Actually, the big mistake the US government was made was right after Desert Storm. When Saddam Hussein refused the first inspection of a building to the UN inspectors, President Bush senior should have immediately flattened that building with everyone and everything in it and told Iraq that the next time they violated the cease fire agreement, the war would be back on again and fought right into downtown Baghdad. It took twelve years of Iraq's games to get to that point. By the way, where is all the oil the US supposedly stole from Iraq, where is it hiding? As an American I want my fair share.

655,000 dead Iraqis according to the Lancet last summer, 655 every single day for three years. I'm afraid that estimate is way too optimistic. At that rate we'll never get rid of all of them.

Hi John,
I’m only saying what I think. I didn’t say that the ±«Óãtv was unbiased. These things are relative, are they not?
In fact, I would criticise the ±«Óãtv for its biased coverage of the Iraq War. One study shows that the ±«Óãtv gave just 2 percent of its coverage of to antiwar dissent. That is actually less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the ±«Óãtv's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right.

Having said that, I think that since the invasion it has been more willing than these others to give voice to criticisms of the war. Moreover, in general news coverage I think it is more trustworthy than most of these others.

But you are not seriously placing CNN or Fox News above the ±«Óãtv. Come off it! And I wasn’t only thinking of News. Is Fox News better than the ±«Óãtv? Now, saying that would be truly original (nonsense). Give us an argument and forget the insults, if that is possible.

Brian- No insults are involved, but I get sick and tired of hearing this about the ±«Óãtv, sometimes in defence of the reprehensible licence fee, and what it amounts to in a majority of cases is a leftwing agenda which is simply better served by a state-run broadcaster than any commercial one simply by virtue of the face it's a "public service" broadcaster (I'm not claiming this is your own motive, by the way).

My apologies if I came off as rude, but there are plenty of American news agencies that I consider equal to and often superior to the ±«Óãtv (Associated Press is a good example, PBS is another). With regard to Fox News, I don't rely on it but I certainly think it's earned its place among the 24-hour news networks as a place where news issues are taken seriously - its shortcomings are wildly exaggerated, usually by people who've rarely watched it. In fact, I'll give you some homework, Brian, if you like. Next time you're Stateside, take a random 10-minute sampling of Fox News and tell me in what ways ±«Óãtv News 24 would have done so much better. I think many of these claims are ideologically motivated delusion.

brian mcclinton #21
"As for the ±«Óãtv, well I’ve watched a bit of CNN and Fox News, and thank goodness we in the UK have the dear old Beeb. For all its faults, it is a great institution and I trust it infinitely more than these dreadful propaganda agencies."

"I didn’t say that the ±«Óãtv was unbiased. These things are relative, are they not?
In fact, I would criticise the ±«Óãtv for its biased coverage of the Iraq War. One study shows that the ±«Óãtv gave just 2 percent of its coverage of to antiwar dissent. That is actually less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the ±«Óãtv's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right."

Actually I'm not sure what you are saying. That you trust one biased source the ±«Óãtv far more than other biased sources Fox and CNN? Why, because you generally agree with ±«Óãtv's brand of bias? I always find it strange that when people find fault with the American news media, they look to sources like CNN, Fox, NBC to criticize instead of the best America has to offer like PBS and C-span. The PBS Nightly News kills ±«Óãtv for completeness, objectivity, presentation of all important points of view by live interviews and discussions with recognized knowledgable experts in their field and it lasts an entire hour. And unlike ±«Óãtv's trying to shove its opinions at the viewer sometimes very subtly, PBS always leaves it for the viewer to decide from among the various viewpoints presented which one is right. Additionally there are many other outstanding news sources on American television such as Washington Week in Review, The Charlie Rose Show, The Leon Charney Report. Talk about authoritative reporting, here you have a host of a one hour weekly program who knows many of the people in the American and Israeli governments on a first name basis and talks to them frequently on their private phone lines. He's also got strong contacts with many people at the top of Arab governments not to mention access to the best government and private analysts anywhere. I can't think of a better source for news about the Middle East, makes ±«Óãtv's coverage look like a joke.

And there are many others too. You comparing ±«Óãtv to Fox is like me comparing the Times of London with the Mirror, Fox is not where the best source of important news is when you really need to know what's happening.

Is it that those on the left deliberately miss the point or is it that they just don't get it? When they say Bush and Blair lied do they think they believed one thing and acted on another or did they believe something which turned out may not have been true as ±«Óãtv apparantly did. That is not the same thing as lying and considering that the US failed to connect the dots to prevent 9-11, I'd rather have a President and an intelligence community which fills in the missing dots with the worst case scenario and pulls the trigger when they feel they have to than a government which fails to act because they don't have every last "I" dotted and "T" crossed, an infamous smoking gun and then sits around hoping for the best. I look on the bright side of Iraq, not only is Saddam Hussein gone, we now have a large military force on the ground for a second front in the coming war with Iran. The other bright spot is that as world war battles go, the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath was not very expensive in terms of coalition military casualties or financial cost. There is far far worse to come.

BTW, here is an interview which could serve as an entire course of study on how to conduct interviews. Non confrontational, Charlie Rose extracts everything you'd want to know about Nicolas Sarkozy to make up your mind about him.

I've watched it close to a dozen times through since it first aired in January.