Stardate 20030127.2234

(On Screen): Good old Reuters; what would we do without them? They report:

US More Isolated on Iraq After Arms Experts Report

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States appeared further isolated on Monday in its attitude toward Baghdad, with most of the world saying U.N. arms inspectors needed more time to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Even Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of staunch U.S. ally Britain, while condemning Iraq's attitude to the inspectors as "a charade," said the continuation of the searches was up to the U.N. Security Council -- not any one state.

Alas! Even the UK is abandoning us. They have finally seen the Weasel Light and will oppose war, because war is icky. (Pay no attention to those 26,000 troops they sent to the Gulf, or the carrier battle group.)

The Associated Press reports the same story as follows:

EU Increasingly Divided Over Iraq Issue

Reports by U.N. weapons inspectors Monday highlighted deepening differences over Iraq among members of the European Union, with Britain maintaining support for the United States' tough position and Germany insisting "war is no alternative."

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was "making a charade of inspection," signaling that the United States' closest ally had only drawn closer. Straw said "time has almost run out. If this failure to comply continues, then Iraq will have to face serious consequences."

"Drawn closer"?

I don't suppose that it's relevant that the Associated Press is American, and Reuters is European? Indeed, Reuters is headquartered in London and seems, I infer, to disagree with Tony Blair's decision on this and really wishes he'd change it.

By the way, Reuters is also the agency which decided quite a while back that it would no longer refer to any Arab as a "terrorist" under any circumstances (even when they deliberately blow themselves up with a nailbomb in a crowded place), and Reuters was responsible for this rather strange caption on a press photo last year. They've also been pushing the idea ever since last November that a second UNSC resolution was absolutely required before the US could attack Iraq (which is false), and it was Reuters which (apparently deliberately) misreported Bush's press conference in Texas in December.

Everyone makes mistakes, of course, but when all the mistakes go the same direction you have to begin to wonder.