From a British perspective, what Sidney Blumenthal says about Rupert Murdoch is dead right.

He owns large parts of the national press and has driven most of them relentlessly downmarket and they are all unfailingly right wing. It's true that most of his papers reluctantly swung behind Tony Blair to help get him elected but Blair had to (and still does) work hard behind the scenes to keep him on-side, to the extent of modifying government policies to keep him sweet (the UK's policy toward the EU springs to mind - Blair talks pro-Europe and acts anti-Europe, just what Murdoch wants).

He also owns the satellite TV channels, BSkyB, most of whose programmes, in my jaundiced view, are dross.

OK, there's room for all sorts of TV programmes to suit all tastes, but companies such as the BBC that don't follow the Murdoch lowest common denominator approach are subject to endless attacks in his media outlets as 'elitist', 'out of touch', etc.

Since moving the hub of his empire to the US (bigger market, more money, same crap product), he's done the same thing as in the UK, but on a bigger scale.

Just before British playwrite Dennis Potter died of pancreatic cancer, he revealed that he referred to his cancer as 'Rupert' after Rupert Murdoch. I think he had it right.

Amidst all the complex reasons for the Iraq mess, I take a couple of major points from this article.

Firstly, George Bush and the neocons circumvented the normal processes of government and acted on 'gut' instinct and an evangelical fervour for what they wanted to believe rather than on any reality-based analysis.

Secondly, how were they allowed to get away with this? Why didn't Americans ask more awkward questions about where this was leading?

I don't think it's a coincidence either that in the UK, Tony Blair, with his religious conviction (unusual for a British politician) and belief in his answerabililty to a higher authority, also ploughed ahead with this crazy war, despite encountering stiff opposition from much of the general public. The London march in opposition to the looming war was about a million strong (that's nearly 2% of the entire population of Britain) but, like George Bush, and with the same righteous fervour, Tony Blair ignored it and ploughed on.

It seems to me that the morals here are that faith-based politics is incredibly dangerous, and that if the media doesn't do its duty in holding its government to account then this can lead to disaster.

A letter here quotes Howard Dean's and Nancy Pelosi's reponse to Pres. Carter's new book and this response suggests that it's going to be business as usual with Israel/Palestine. If this is true, and not just cautious remarks for public consumption, then God help us.

There's no hope for Israel/Palestine, and hence no end to Middle East violence, until US policy towards Israel changes. And if the Democrats aren't going to change it then they're no better than the Republicans.

Although a bit too sentimental and folksy for my taste, I'm with Garrison Keillor on this. Christmas is there to be enjoyed. I'm an atheist but recogise the power of the Christmas message of peace and goodwill. I hate the Christmas commercialism that starts in November (in the UK) but like buying presents for my family and being given them in return. I like spending time with my family and friends in an atmosphere of celebration and eating and drinking too much.

If you don't like that sort of thing, then you need to get a life.

You can't judge the poor guy's competence from looking him in the eye, nor from current performance because he's in an impossible situation. Iraq's been trashed beyond repair (thanks, America) and it's just futile to expect al-Maliki to be able to put it back together again.

Walter Shapiro is surely right that it's the requirements of US domestic policy that will ultimately determine what happens in Iraq. As a non-American, I can't tell you how galling it is when this happens, and it's happened many times before. The US takes some action which affects others in the wider world but you know that it's how it plays back home, and not abroad where the effects are felt, that will be the main policy driver.

I know that this is a fact of life, that all governments consider the domestic impact of their policies first and foremost, but, for such a heavy hitter as the US, it does suggest that a certain amount of care is necessary before launching initiatives that have global implications.

Hurray!

Best news the UN has had for ages.

John Bolton was the most arrogant, aggressive, bullying, rude, and plain wrong, diplomat that I've ever seen or heard of. Diplomat? Hah! It just beggars belief that Bush could appoint somebody like Bolton, who showed nothing but unconcealed contempt for the UN, its institutions, and all its works.

Now, perhaps, the UN has a better chance of moving forward.

"The United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government..."

"If the Iraqi government demonstrates political will and makes substantial progress..."

i.e. we broke it, you fix it. Or else you're on your own, mate.

It looks like the ISG has suggested a way forward that could turn out to be the least bad option. However, let's be clear about this, their report is all about fixing America's problem and not Iraq's.

Bush may yet reject the most sensible parts of the report (dialogue with Iran, Syria, focus on Israel/Palestine), and if he does, what will we be left with? A country smashed to pieces, countless dead Iraqis and turmoil in the region.

The ISG says that the report is not a "magic formula that will solve the problems of Iraq". Too right.