Eric,
Having made sense of my anger, not at you but at some of my compatriots, I've this morning rewritten the blog entry that gave you this trackback.
I think you are very seriously mistaken in your reading of this whole wretched business -- wherever you may be coming from on the political spectrum.
What has just happened in London has such damaging repercussions for the media worldwide that I feel we journalists would all do well to give it far more thought than you did when your posted this.
Still with warmest regards,
Nick

Okay Nick, I will read what you have to say on the matter and take it very seriously.

After reading and thinking seriously about this, I will state that I don't do the polls here.

I would very much like to hear why my cursory view of this is so misinformed.

The implications of this for journalists worldwide? I could be laboring under a misimpression/misunderstanding here, but to me this is a big deal only because the BBC is taxpayer supported, compulsory tax at that. Which I think is ridiculous.

You would never see this in America because, well, the government doesn't have much, if any, say in how press operations are run. Even NPR, for the most part, is left alone except for the occasional thundering from a backbencher Congressman-R who got a letter from Mildred in Anytown about how horribly biased NPR is and would you please do something about it?

I think that's about right, Chris. Follow-up here.

I've read and appreciated your follow-up, Eric, which really strikes me as rather more measured. ;)
The main problem I had with what you initially wrote here, and I know I was pretty harsh, arises from a trend which has disturbed me in a great deal of American thinking and writing since what you people call "9/11".
Without wishing to sound in the least bit patronising or "old-Europe" superior and arrogant Brit, it appears to me that ever since that appalling event, some Americans have opted a blinkered and sometimes navel-gazing outlook on the rest of the world, particularly in foreign policy issues, for which we all have to pay very high prices.
It's as if you can visit that 'Biased BBC', again making a excellent point simply by virtue of a good link, without the distance and judgement to see that it's a biased place in its own right.
Note the comment there from Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor, who really must be one of the brightest and most respected journalists in the UK.
I don't think Americans, or anybody else for that matter, should consider that what has just shaken Britain is a purely domestic matter and something which "couldn't happen here".
The Hutton report, if you take the admittedly considerable time required to read the thing virtually a whitewash for Blair's government.
It's one of the many things happening across the media worldwide today which gives governments an increasing edge in silencing genuine, independent inquiry and investigation.
One of the repercussions is that an increasingly fragilised BBC may -- just may -- no longer dare to tackle head on the underlying issues Hutton refused to handle and face.
Of course I acknowledge differences in international approaches. Hutton certainly could not have happened in France because there's scarcely a journalist left in this country who dares write about what virtually every ordinary Frenchman knows to be routine lying, corruption and concealment on the part of most of their politicians.
The BBC should have apologised earlier. There's no smell of roses about about that institution, but there's a fearful reek of rose-water spray about the British government right now.
The kinds of questions that badly need answers -- and almost certainly will not be answered now -- are, for instance:
Who gave Hutton his brief in the first place?
Why did the judge accept limitations in that brief which render the genuine independence from government of the British judiciary highly doubtful?
Was not the notorious "45-minute" claim that underlies this whole wicked affair and eventually "killed" Kelly still an appalling lie -- whether or not Blair believed it at the time?
Both Bush and Blair lied their way into this war. They attacked Iraq on false proclaimed premises, perhaps themselves deceived about WMD and the threat posed by such weapons by flawed intelligence, though I doubt it.
We're a damned sight closer to 1984, by consensual acquiescence, in what still passes for modern western "democracy" than most people would care to admit.
Hutton has made the risks of the completion of that process by a whole host of governments -- whether yours in the States, mine here in France, or that Teflon one in Britain -- that little bit easier.
The creeping crushing of any genuine independence of thought and investigative work by journalists of the likes of you, me and others here, has never been more of a risk, in my opinion, since the complacencies of the 1930s than it has become today.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just had a spicy-ass fish sandwich!

Nick, Not being able to top Dwaine in brevity or eloquence, I will simply say thanks for your informative and heartfelt response. I certainly understand your perspectie and concerns now, and for that I am grateful.

I, inevitably I imagine, have a different perspective and don't see things nearly as grimly as you do. As I said originally, i am certain both the Bush and Blair governments read the intelligence to most favor their own perspectives, but who doesn't? I don't think anyone "lied" - everyone thought Iraq had WMD, including, apparently, Saddam himself.

And for me, even if they didn't have them - recently - it doesn't change much. The world is still a much better place and the sanguine repercussions of "regime change" continue to all of our benefit.