Sunday, 30 January 2011

Reality Check

Peter Oborne blogs, and almost all of the many comments are favourable.

Neil Clark is in demand as never before.

And even those neocons who are not imprisoned behind the Murdoch paywall are howled down below the line.

As it should be. Of course.

Now, let's see them spin the "popular uprising" that overthrows a Bush favourite and installs the Muslim Brotherhood, ready, willing and able to send the Sphinx and the Pyramids the way of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.


  1. A sort of High Tory realism is definitely reasserting itself under posts by the likes of Nile Gardiner, Daniel Korski and Con Coughlin. Same under those by Peter Oborne and Peter Hitchens, except that in those cases it involves agreeing with the bloggers instead of correctly screaming them down. Or doing what you do and proving that the people below the line know far more than the CIA/Mossad shills above it.

    Speaking of whom, Oborne's blog is so well-received that you have to wonder how much longer Sharon can last. Neither ownership nor editorship is the same as it used to be. New blogs editor, new bloggers? Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Peter McKay, Freddy Gray, Stephen Glover, Daniel McCarthy, Neil Clark and everyone else who was right about Iraq? Could it really happen?

  2. US-based comments aside, the Telegraph's (and the Spectator's) readers do pretty obviously want a return to the classically Tory position after all these years of neoconnery.

    Whereas the Daily Mail always retained room for it. While the Mail on Sunday scarecely deviated from it, really, even continuing to find room for articles by figures such as Mark Almond and John Laughland. Not only in these fat years for the Tory realist position, but throughout the lean years of pro-Bush lunacy.

  3. Sharon did at least hire Oborne as a blogger, even if she didn't really have any choice with Oborne as chief political commentator. Sharon also hired Tim Collard and Mary Riddell. DeNile and NeoCon do not blog so much anymore, doubtless on account of their discredited position. Who knows, Sharon might here the people listed at 21:25? Then what should we start calling her instead?

  4. You need to stop putting up comments with this Sharon business in them. We know that you are an old-fashioned Northern operator and that that is part of your charm. We all enjoy the stories about what happens to student hacks who cross you. But one of the least endearing things about you is your legendary ability to bear a grudge. These Sharon people are pandering to that.

    There is all the difference in the world between teaching errant schoolboys a lesson and using a blog much read by London's Arabs and Iranians to brand as a Mossad agent a man whose home address is in Who's Who. There was a terrorist attack on the Telegraph, an IRA one, some years ago. Do you want something like that to happen again, just to get even with a man I do not think you have ever met face to face? Even you must draw the line somewhere.

    Great blog in general, though.

  5. Known him for 20 years31 January 2011 at 12:54

    "Great blog"? Are you too frightened not to stick that in at the end? If DL ends up driving "Sharon" from "her" home, then it wouldn't be the first time that he had run someone out of town for daring to criticize him. It might be the first time that he had used an international terrorist organization to do it but I wouldn't bet on that.

    "We all enjoy the stories about what happens to student hacks who cross you"? Speak for yourself. I find nothing enjoyable about careers ruined by a man who appears not to need one of his own, interrupting his blogging only to put on his dinner jacket and waltz onto high table before rolling back to one of the poshest villages for miles and miles around. Again not the only careers that he has ever ruined.

    "Part of your charm"? Oh he has charm all right. Isn't he well dressed, well spoken, well read, deeply religious? It is a brilliant cover, there is a reason why so many people have got away with so much under it. One of those people is David Lindsay.

    In all of this he honestly believes that he is doing God's work. That gives him carte blanche to do what the hell he likes. I wouldn't be surprised if he thought the fate of his beloved Arab Christians called for something a bit dramatic to draw attention to them. Watch out "Sharon".

  6. "Known him for 20 years", are you too frightened to use your real name?

    Anonymous 12:27, very many thanks, and no, of course not: Peter Oborne works there. Which probably makes the place perfectly safe from that quarter.

    He (presumably not she) may not mean to, but "Known him for 20 years" makes an important point. If we persistently side with or facilitate the persecutors of Middle Eastern Christians, then how long can it be before we make ourselves targets for their more militant elements?

    Thankfully, we now have a Prime Minister who says that he wishes that he had voted against the Iraq War, a Deputy Prime Minister who actually did so, a Leader of the Opposition who would have done so if he had been an MP at the time, and a Foreign Secretary who talks about visiting Palestine (the Popular and Democratic Fronts for the Liberation of which were founded by Christians) while recognising that the recent change of government in Lebanon was entirely constitutional.

  7. Peter Oborne works there. Which probably makes the place perfectly safe from that quarter.

    Maybe Sharon should start sleeping at work? Keep up the pressure on that Uncle Tom, such an ostentatious Catholic that he wants to exterminate all the Catholics and other Christians in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Egypt.

    Good point about the Arab Christian reaction if we persist in siding with their persecutors. Ensconced in the land of the Northumbrian scholar-saints, do you realise how valued this blog is by them and their friends? Unlike Sharon's. Sharon. I love that. Love it.