Well, I had promised faithfully to restart my ratings tomorrow (Tuesday). However, I'm actually going to be away all day and into the early hours of Wednesday. So therefore, I will do a post for Tuesday, but in a remarkably similar scenario, I'll be posting it late. The best laid plans of mice and men...

"It's been a long time... getting from there to here."

Ah yes, my favourite words from the opening of Star Trek: Enterprise (and also, bizarrely, those which Russell Watson blasted out at the opening of the Commonwealth Games this year). In truth, it has only been a month getting from there (no Dayorama) to here (an award, but not much Dayorama).

That will now change. After we realised that someone (The Guardian) actually seemed to enjoy reading the site, and considered it one of the Top 30 in Britain, we have returned to boldly rate what no weblog has rated before. The day. Join us on our continuing mission to find a day worth 0 points, find a day worth 12 points, find a post from OJ without a stupid link and find a blog-comments service that doesn't go out of business the moment I install it here.

It's a weblog, Jim, but not as we know it.

Well.

It's been a while.

So, neither of us has been particularly prolific since, oh, 2 or 3 weeks ago. Well, I say prolific, but I mean we haven't actually added anything since.

It's going to change. Honest. Why?

Well, we're both heading up to Oxford in a week or so, and after the initial freshers' week madness, we'll have settled in. Currently, my life consists of reading obscure history books, scrounging money of relatives and searching for suitable kettles (harder to find than you might imagine). In a couple of weeks, I'll have some form of consistency back in my life.

Also, we just got featured by The Grauniad as one of the 30 best blogs in Britain (or something like that). So, is this the spur we need to carry on and get back in the groove? Probably.

Stay tuned.

Instead of my usual blurb about the day (and OJ's), instead we present our conversation using MSN Messenger this evening concerning what to do with Iraq in the aftermath of a war.
The conversation extract here starts with me singing the praises of George W Bush - this extract has not been altered in any way to preserve the full flavour of the conversation (although my username at the time was actually a reference to the fajitas I had just eaten rather than 'Ollie', and they definitely had full flavour).

Ollie says: actually, after seeing him being interviewed in his bio, i've warmed to him even further
Ollie says: i think he really is a great guy to be in charge
Ollie says: sure, so his problem in life is he gets speeches cacked up
Ollie says: but i think he's handled 9/11 as well as anyone would
OJ says: fine
OJ says: but i dislike his demeanour
OJ says: and his policies
Ollie says: i think it's the best part
Ollie says: and his policies aren't really made by him
OJ says: obviously the folks thing goes down really well in the US
OJ says: which is fine
OJ says: but there are times when he just slips into it unconsciously
OJ says: subconsciously
OJ says: even
OJ says: or not
Ollie says: lol!
OJ says: you can never tell
OJ says: and i am not convinced about his willingness to attack Iraq
OJ says: not yet
Ollie says: i am
Ollie says: it's got to happen
Ollie says: there is NO WAY it will not happen
Ollie says: (see Dayorama column)
OJ says: true - he's got too much riding on it
Ollie says: not just that
Ollie says: but look at the options here
Ollie says: option one is he asks the UN to send weapons inspectors back with a deadline, on its own terms
Ollie says: is Iraq going to okay that? no
Ollie says: so we have a war
Ollie says: option two, Bush goes ahead anyway. thus war
Ollie says: there is no real option three
OJ says: fine in the short term
OJ says: but in the long term
OJ says: i think:
OJ says: a) a victory the kind that everyone expects ie. Saddam dies, the happy regime takes over is unlikely to happen
OJ says: indeed, i'd be surprised if they can kill Saddam
Ollie says: no one expects 'the happy regime takes over'
Ollie says: i expect them to get Saddam this time
Ollie says: they can't afford not to
OJ says: what do they expect then?
Ollie says: the end of Saddam
Ollie says: nothing more can be expected
OJ says: and then.....
OJ says: ....
OJ says: ....
Ollie says: and then we've got to do an afghanistan, leave people in there and see what happens
OJ says: not that way at all
Ollie says: there's not going to be an immediate westernisation and cuddliness all round
OJ says: in Afghanistan there was an opposition party
OJ says: an outcast government
Ollie says: no no no, don't rattle off old column material from other sites at me :)
OJ says: and the rise of the Taleban was recent
Ollie says: i'm well aware of that, but they were no better than the Taliban
Ollie says: there's still plenty of our troops in there
OJ says: Saddam
OJ says: as the Iraq Daily points out
Ollie says: get off my pet site
OJ says: has been in power since 1979
OJ says: and i doubt that anyone can remember what was there beforehand
Ollie says: so what are you going to do? leave Saddam in power because you can't think of anything better to do?
OJ says: it's a great site, btw
OJ says: i'd neuter him
Ollie says: i'd rather knock him out and then see what happens than leave him in full control
Ollie says: "neuter him", come on
OJ says: leave him in power
Ollie says: and do what? take his toys?
OJ says: but humiliate him
OJ says: exactly
OJ says: go in
OJ says: destroy his army
Ollie says: he wouldn't stay in power!
OJ says: his palaces
OJ says: his weapons
Ollie says: if he had no army and no form of enforced rule
Ollie says: the man would not stay in power
Ollie says: you think the generals, the officials, the ordinary Iraqi public are going to accept a humiliated, powerless dictator?
OJ says: and the people would overthrow him
OJ says: not the Americans
OJ says: even if in reality, they had undermined him
Ollie says: so you're saying let a rowdy mob get him rather than any semblance of law and order?
OJ says: think you have just as good a chance of an acceptable outcome as the American option
Ollie says: so why not go for the American option then?
Ollie says: at least then there is no chance of Saddam coming back
OJ says: becaue I fear
Ollie says: if you leave him to it, he may well have a way back
OJ says: that they would be, most likely, a more destablising influence than Saddam
OJ says: we all know that Iran just loves the US
Ollie says: ah, but that's a whole new ballgame
OJ says: nope
OJ says: same part of a bigger one
Ollie says: now we're into American status in the Arab states
Ollie says: that would not be the immediate focus of any war
Ollie says: if necessary leave the UN in charge
OJ says: it would be by default
Ollie says: or give Iraq to Israel and watch the fun begin :D

Well, I waited and waited yesterday, but sadly the USA did not live up to my prediction and declare war.

That said, they're getting closer day by day and I don't think Bush will be able to hold out until the more conservative predictions of November - only today, Bush demanded Iraq be given a deadline of 'days and weeks... not years' to allow inspectors back on UN terms.

Two scenarios are therefore possible. Either the UN impose a short-term deadline at Bush's request, which Iraq will surely fail to comply with, and we have a war on our hands, or the UN impose or long-term deadline (or don't bother entirely), Bush goes it alone and we have a war on our hands. I do not see any way in which this crisis can end without there being a war, and frankly I believe that we may as well get it over with sooner rather than later. If not because it is inevitable, then because if we start now my prediction will still be closer than OJ's. Additionally, if we do start in November, I don't want my birthday spoilt by the unwelcome introduction of chemical bombs to the party.

CNN lead story: Russia gives positive reaction to Bush.
Iraq Daily lead story: Russia gives negative reaction to Bush.

Well, it's getting harder to accurately rate each day as though they are much the same - Bush threatens this, Blair murmurs agreement, other nations hum and haw, Iraq loftily waves two fingers - it is all still highly important and could spill over at any time. 5.0, methinks.

A year is an exceptionally long time in which to ruminate over and dissect a single event, but it will take much longer for any hint of an understanding to be reached about the events of this day last year. I was about the last person I know to actually see any footage of the towers after I scurried home that evening, and stood motionless in front of the set for almost an hour watching ceaseless images of the carnage and destruction. No doubt almost anyone else will have a similar story.

What really strikes me a year on is how vulnerable we will all become, once again, if we go to war with Iraq. Don't misunderstand me - I am, in general, an advocate of taking on Saddam and toppling him, despite one or two misgivings. However, it occurs to me that everyone is discussing Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' without actually pausing to think what they mean. We are not playing around with some meaningless substance he might or might not have knocking around. If he does actually have them, then yes, it is a very good reason to go to war but also a very good reason to stay indoors if we do. Even if Britain hangs back from standing shoulder to shoulder with the US in any war, which I very much doubt Blair will shy away from, Iraq still considers the two nations effectively one and the same. If Saddam can hit Britain with something fairly potent while he still has the chance, I would not bet against him doing so. He is, after all, a highly irrational human being by all accounts, and not one we can easily predict.

One thing I would not want to do is go over to Iraq and become a human shield, as some Americans and a solitary Briton have pledged to do if we declare war. That, it seems to me, is a lose-lose situation - if the Americans don't get you, surely Saddam will eventually get tired of you.

Anyway, on this sad occasion no-one can forget the loss and destruction, or the impending war ahead. Today receives from me a 7.7, though estimating the true meaning of the 1st Anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks is really an impossible task. My heart goes out to everyone affected by it.

I remember when I was first told about the attacks. I was in the U6th Room in Evans house at school, sitting on the sofa having just finished my last lesson (History). Suddenly, two 5th years came in and started going on about a plane hitting the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. I didn’t believe them – firstly because they were the type of people who enjoy winding people up, and because it seemed so improbable. They were insistent, however, so I turned the radio to BBC Radio 4 where there were some unclear reports about a plane crash. Then I tried the TV in the house, which was pretty broken so I rushed down to the 6th Form Centre where about 30 people were crowded around the television. I stayed there, saw the second plane hit and tried to make sense of it all. The general feeling was one of shock – especially after it became apparent that the planes were hijacked and that it was not an accident. Few people said much, but a few of us tried to figure out what it all meant. I then went to the IT suite to check the BBC news site, but of course that was overloaded. Next I went to another house, Marshall, and spent the next hour watching the television. I missed the first tower falling, but saw the second – not that it mattered, due to the repeats filling the time.

In retrospect, the next bit seems silly on what was such an important day in history. As it was Tuesday, I had a prefects’ meeting to go to, where surprisingly little was mentioned of the attack. It all seemed so baffling and indescribable, not just to people like myself and Ollie who had what would be considered an above normal interest in current affairs, but to everyone. Then I remember driving back home, the traffic being heavier than normal for a Tuesday, listening to the updates on Radio 4 – although by now all the stations were tuned in to either ITN or the BBC. That was when I heard about the fourth plane that crashed on its way to what was assumed to be either the White House or Camp David. When I got home, I just crashed and watched the news, aghast at the pictures of people jumping from the buildings and on the spot reports. I made a few posts on a message board I frequent with some friends, the interesting part being the following:

Atli and everybody else who says it, I agree, this is like Pearl Harbour.
This attack is also the kick the American economy needed to get out of recession.
Bush will almost certainly be re-elected.
If ever there was an excuse for National Missile Defence, this is it. The military budget will surely grow again.
America will take a more interventionist role again, but this time take it more seriously and commit more troops.
Thank God it wasn't Anthrax or any other biological weapon.
Everything the '90s stood for - free enterprise, free speech, the messing around post-Communism - has been superceded. The moment the first plane touched the tower, our world changed. No longer is it 'anything goes'. To (part) quote Fight Club "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War." We get terrorism. It's a new world order.
Looking back on others’ on the spot thoughts is interesting, but I had forgotten I had written this until recently. I seemed almost surprisingly optimistic. Yet in between times have changed. Who knew what Enron, WorldCom or Anderson were doing at the time? The NMD argument has pretty much disappeared. Anthrax did appear in a separate incident. Interestingly, no mention was made of Iraq, especially after it was confirmed that al-Qaeda were the Culprits. Although Bush’s argument is that it is all part of a wider force, it seems amazing how quickly we have shifted our focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. And Bush being re-elected? Well, we’ll see how that turns out, although the more questions there are over Iraq, the less I think it is likely to happen.

In many ways, this contribution is worth little. I wasn’t in the WTC when it was hit. I didn’t know anyone who was, or anyone else who know someone who was. I didn’t know anyone in the Pentagon. But I do remember where I was when it all happened, and I doubt I will ever forget.

Firstly, I, too, will be away for the rest of today so there will be no column for Tuesday. This is Monday's column, admittedly a little late due to various problems.

The Conservative Party must be highly amused. If the TUC and Labour carry on at their present rate, even the Tories cannot fail to get elected at the next general election. It seems that despite being supposedly on the same side, and in the presence of close ties that have linked the two organisations for decades, the TUC and Labour can no longer agree on anything. Most recently, the TUC has attacked Labour over Iraq and Union executive Bob Crow has done little, if anything, to further the cause of either side, pinning obscure and unworkable deadlines to his demands. Now, the TUC conference is being billed as a contest rather than a progressive debate, Blair versus the TUC at high noon.

Frankly, Blair has better things to worry about. Yes, domestic policy is of course crucial and the TUC, for all its whingeing, is representing the people. Yes, obviously, the Prime Minister has a duty to pay very close attention to the people, and the unions, and act quickly and efficiently upon their whims. But not in the immediate build-up to a war with Iraq and possibly the whole Arab world, surely. Understandably the TUC want to push their points home, but Blair is hardly going to stand or fall on their every word whilst he is busy sorting out impending military strikes with the world's only remaining superpower. If I was Prime Minister, I know where my concerns would lie.

On the other hand, there is a little suspicion in my mind that Blair would quite fancy a war right about now. Last year, the TUC conference was cancelled due to the attacks on the World Trade Center. Even then, before it was cancelled, it was being billed as the unions against Blair. This time round, the unions have had a whole extra year to simmer away and gather their thoughts, whilst Blair is unlikely to have been pre-occupied with the TUC for a whole twelve months. Blair is at a definite disadvantage, and a war with Iraq would probably be a very welcome distraction. It would most likely perk up manufacturing and the defence industry for obvious reasons, it would give the country a cause to unite and would shove the concerns of the unions very firmly into the back of the collective consciousness. Again, if I were in the PM's shoes, I would be quietly hoping the US declares full-scale war some time soon. Monday? A 4.0.

Well, what can I say? There won't be much of a column from me today because I've been watching The Faculty all evening. I know, it's not what you have come to expect from me, but it was just that good... I can only apologise and promise a return to normal service tomorrow.

Not, of course, that much has changed today - Blair and Bush have strengthened their partnership, and that about sums it up. But you can't ignore the true gravity of the situation the world is now getting itself into - a 4.1 to keep things ticking over...

Bismarck would have been so proud!

Not much happening again today – just further confirmation that Blair and Bush did talk, and that Blair is likely to face a tough audience at the TUC conference this week. These postings on the lack of activity on the war do hint at a new paradox of the modern media. Everything is so interconnected, the ability to post and publish – like this – so easy and quick to achieve that we seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time talking about what’s happening, not happening or may happen. It makes the time between actions seem longer and longer.

I’ll be away for the next week down in Devon, and don’t expect to be able to post (not that there aren’t computers in Devon, rather I’ll be lounging by a pool and reading). I should be back on Saturday, although I’ll give Ollie my post for Wednesday.

Rating – 4.25

The financial crisis at British Energy, which I discussed earlier this week, is reaching a critical stage - now a full investigation into a possible cover-up of the true damage has been launched.

But that, of course, is not the focus of the media right now, though the news organisations (apart from the refreshingly enlightening Guardian) seem to be running out of different viewpoints and opinions concerning Iraq. Over at Iraq Daily (see yesterday's column for an explanation of the Special Relationship I am developing with this site), the big story is the promise of Lebanese backing for Iraq from their president.

I consider this to be bad news - I ate in a fantastic Lebanese restaurant in Oxford today, and Lebanese cuisine certainly agrees with me. I would be horrified to arrive in Oxford in a month's time only to find that the Lebanese had moved out.

Putting my less serious outlook to one side for a moment, I'm still not sure if I agree with my own earlier predicition that war will officially be declared on 12th September. Various experts (including OJ, who presumably stole it from somewhere else like he did his 'Iraq and a hard place' pun - do a Google search for it) have gone for November. I can see the reasoning for this, as I agree that it will take a long time for Iraq to jump through UN hoops and then be found to actually be circumventing them, and I also agree that the US military is not yet fully prepared for war.

But then, with Blair gallivanting off to the USA to talk tactics, I can't help but feel that the US has absolutely no intention of waiting for the UN to finish going through the motions. Bush can't afford to stand around while debate rages in his own country about whether to go to war or not - he needs to act quickly and silence the debate by making the question irrelevant. If he waits too long, the country will divide itself in two over the issue, his supremacy will be undermined and his judgement questioned if he does eventually decide to invade. With mid-term elections coming up, Bush needs to portray himself as strong, unflinching and decisive. Attacking Iraq to prove it is a bold move, but one I think the USA is currently prepared to make, especially with Blair providing his backing.

I give today a 4.0, as the action has died down a little but the dogs of war are still waiting in the wings.

Not suitable for children?

And lo, Bush and Blair are talking at a summit (although not at a B&B would could have been a touch more appropriate). Discussion, it seems, is less concerned with the actual how of an invasion but more with convincing others to support, if not follow suit. To be honest, there’s not much new here, but it will be interesting to see how it turns out. Watching Newsnight last I was interested by some comments by an ex-American Envoy (who’s name I have forgotten; sorry fella). In particular, he emphasised how hard it would be for Bush to back out now if he doesn’t gain further international support – even the grudgingly in favour attitude of the Russians over Kosovo has now changed to a “no”. Yet at the same time any unilateral or bilateral attack is less likely to be successful and also will change the rules of the game.

Bush, it seems, is between Iraq and a hard place.

Also, an attack on an American base in Germany was foiled not by meticulous searching and counter surveillance, but by a tip off by a friend. At the end of the day, we still have to rely on the fact that the attacker slips up, rather than proactive counter-terrorism. After all, no crime is perfect.

On a related note, it concerns me that Germany is not a permanent member of the Security Council, yet France is. The German military is far larger and better trained than the French, and is also usual more flexible than the French. However, it has just occurred to me that the UN was set up in the shadow of World War II and thus it was probably some form of punishment for Germany to be excluded, unlike after World War I. 50 years on, I would say it’s time for a rethink.

Also of note was a piece in today’s Telegraph picking up on Blair’s use of “pay the blood price” as noted here, first(ish) yesterday. Do not underestimate the influence of the Dayorama!

Rating – 4.8; the tension is building.

Well, I don't think I can really discuss the current Iraq situation from a Western point of view any better than the hundreds of columnists and pundits in the mass media, or even OJ (who makes a very good point in his column for today), so I thought I'd take a different slant altogether on the current events.

In a rare moment of inspiration, I actually did a little online research myself for this. My first stop is the Iraqi News Agency. Though the site is a little unclear, I think it is safe to assume that the INA is a state-run affair (Uruklink.net being the 'State Company for Internet Services') - I went along to the INA to see what Iraq is saying about recent developments.

The most eye-catching headline is the one given a prominent position at the top of the main page, 'Stupid US Sanctions'. The INA does not mince its words. I should also mention that the wallpaper for the Sanctions sub-site contains some quite horrific images of children, too. Now, I am not going to be naive enough to be misled by what is blatant propaganda (the sanctions are the 'kick of a dying mule' according to the INA), but this worries me. How far does the Iraqi population itself buy these accusations? Do they know that the Western world considers these comments to be horrendously misleading and untrue? Or is this statement taken as fact in Iraq?

More importantly, how do we gauge the coverage our own media provides us? It may sound ridiculous, but what is there to stop the governments (or even, if you are a true conspiracy theorist, Majestic 12) of the Western world manipulating our own media? I hold the Guardian entirely exempt from this for no apparent reason, but I am concerned that if the media can be made to carefully guide the public into a set mode of thought in one country, then it can be done much more subtly in others. How many times have reports of major victories in wars, reported in Britain and the US, later turned into inquiries over some fiasco or other that highlights a much lesser victory or even a defeat? It happens regularly. When (not 'if' any more) we officially go to war with Iraq, I'm certainly not going to be believing the Iraqi point of view, but I'm not sure I'll be totally trusting of the British perspective either.

That said, there's certainly some interesting points to be made on the INA's sister site, Iraq Daily. Firstly, some pages and images are missing throughout (the 'About Us' page is ominously entirely blank), which smacks of an unprofessional attitude and also leads me to suggest that no one in Iraq can get the training or resources they need to provide an effective web presence. So I decided to check the source code to see if that would reveal anything - lo and behold, Microsoft Frontpage Express appears to be the software used! Surely that is a conflict of interests of the highest order. Also, I will be interested to see how often the name beside 'Editor-in-chief' on that page changes.

Should full-scale war erupt, I will be paying frequent visits to these sites with a more serious purpose - to see how Iraq is actually seeing and reporting events. It cannot be far away now. I predicted September 12th on Tuesday, then thought about it and decided I had been far too naive in suggesting such a close date, but with today's air strikes, Bush buttering up the UN security council and Blair pledging allegiance to the US, I'm feeling a little more confident in my clairvoyancy. Today receives a 5.3.

That clear cut case in full.

So finally we have some action in Iraq. “Up to 100 aircraft” took part in a bombing raid in Iraq, the largest in four years: but no-one’s entirely sure why. The target, a command and control centre – and depending one who your read, it ranges from being the centre of the Iraqi defence system to just another command centre – is of a high strategic importance if one is planning an attack, yet the remit of the forces currently based in the Gulf does not, as far as I am aware, extend this far, only to ‘peacekeeping.’ Surprisingly, the coverage has still centred on debate on justification of a war; here is a piece on analysis of the attack, which I had thought would have been covered in a more detached manner i.e. focussing on the actual attack rather than how it links into the wider spectrum of things. Of course it does, I just think there’s room for factual reporting and analysis here as well.

In a related story (although most things, it seems, are related to Iraq these days) Bush has found that *shock* not everyone agrees with them, only this time it’s Russia and they sit on the Security Council and do have some influence. As much as Bush does want to go to war with Iraq, I imagine he and his wonks do not want to act in a unilateral or at best bilateral manner as that would have more serious consequences for relations with the rest of the Arab world than multilateral action involving Russia, France and China would – many heads of state of the smaller Arab nations, such as Qatar and Jordan are willing to listen to debate over the issue but not just sit on the sidelines and watch America act. Seems fair to me.

Finally, further to his speech in Sedgefield that was reported in the WP link yesterday, Blair now says that “Britain must be prepared to pay a "blood price" to secure its special relationship with the US.” Go through the article and you can see that he then tries to distance himself from the idea that Britain is America’s junior partner! I can accept that we must be willing to see British losses in a military campaign against Iraq. But securing the ‘special relationship’ usually involves policy agreements over cups of tea. It’s almost as if Blair became unpopular again in the international playground of diplomacy; it’s a very foolish slip of the tongue if he expects coffins to arrive in order just to be America’s best buddy.

Rating – 5.5: is this the beginning of the attack?

More on the stiffing – I’m done with the Chinese joke now.

No one story in particular of special interest; a number of interesting stories, however. Firstly, the failed assassination of Hamid Karzai. Quite what would have happened had it been successful is anyone’s guess – it seems unlikely that this was not part of some wider agenda, so a revolt and/or riots is probably a good one.

Blair is refusing to recall Parliament in order to debate the Iraq situation – instead he’s going to discuss it with Putin. A link from Andrew Sullivan goes to an interesting article in the WP that presents a very “can do” attitude from Blair, certainly a change from the British press with their mostly ‘negative’ approach – negative in as much as they want to see some debate first. Tam Dalyell, Father of the House, argued on today’s JY prog that this was the most important debate in his lifetime and yet it was unlikely to go to vote; here is Sullivan’s approach.

Rating – 3.5

Chinese whispers?

So Ollie’s away and I have this all to myself. I’m free to mess around further with the rating system (see the witty footnote in the original concept page); alas I will settle for merely blaming him for missing Monday’s deadline by 10 seconds. Actually it was Blogger that was acting up and didn’t allow me to post – nevertheless Ollie holds liability for ruining my record of perfect posting.

Further to my post yesterday about Blair going through the motions, the BBC leads with the news that Bush is now doing the same thing (I’m obviously more influential than I thought). I caught some of Bush’s press conference on TV today and was summarily unimpressed. He may make slips of the tongue more regularly than is usual (see the Bushisms archive, and in the article "stiffing the world"), but his continued difficulty in presenting a clear case for invading Iraq, highlighted by the painful press conference where the noise of the cameras during the “pauses” was deafening, suggests that in fact his case is pretty weak and he knows it. Not of course that it will stop him. Many commentators said that the action in Afghanistan would become another Vietnam (or, more elegantly, another Afghanistan) in as much as it was not a “real” war with clearly defined objectives. I believe that the consequent actions – Tora Bora, not finding Bin Laden – support this theory; however it is obvious that the Bush administration was also aware of this. Hence the campaign was quietly moved to the back of the news cycle (technically, it’s still ongoing) and, by being neutered so early, it became neither a success nor a failure. There is too much at stake with Iraq – especially with the near universal condemnation of any potential American action by Arab nations (Kuwait excepted) – that means any American action will surely be limited, and consequently have little effect. All talk and no walk.

What’s that, you want a date? Novemberish, I’d say.

Finally, Tuesday Morning Quarterback is, um, back! Props to Ollie for picking it up on Nextdraft (I should really read it before deleting it) – my reason for not finding it being that TMQ has jumped ship to ESPN.com’s ‘Page 2’ without, it seems, telling Slate readers!

Rating – 3.4; Blair is going to publish a dossier on reasons for attacking Iraq, Bush is consulting world leaders, the Summit is ending. It’s all beginning to take shape.

I will be away from now until Friday night, so I do not expect to be able to rate either Wednesday or Thursday here. I shall leave you in OJ's capable hands as sole columnist for these two days, and I sincerely hope that nothing interesting happens while I'm gone.

Sooner or later, the Iraq crisis is going to boil over. There can be no doubt about that, the question is simply, when?

Today, Iraqi Deputy Tariq Aziz invited the USA to 'tell... the world that their concerns are genuine' and send officials into Iraq - he also extended the offer to Britain. Aziz made it clear that he thought the USA was using the issue over weapons simply as a 'pretext to war' with no real grounding, and labelled the previous weapons inspectors 'people who drag their feet for years without reaching a conclusion.'

Aziz ended by saying, 'there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.' Not so, says a panel of US experts, who maintain that Iraq possesses 'enough to kill thousands and thousands of civilians or soldiers'. Furthermore, they may have developed 'mobile laboratories' which would be able to elude US intelligence services. Tony Blair, too, has threatened Iraq with a dossier of evidence (why haven't we seen this before? Why keep it for a dramatic entry?) and has stated that the US and the UK need to 'face Iraq together'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction right now. The USA will declare war against Iraq on Thursday, 12th September (they would do it a day later, but I fail to believe any president will declare war on Friday the 13th - additionally, Bush will be hoping to ride into war on a wave of patriotism after the 11th September anniversary). The UK will announce it is joining the war on Friday, 13th September (no superstition will faze Blair). Iraq will strike first, on Israel. And within five weeks, the USA will have won. Simple, really. I don't know why each side doesn't just round up 10,000 of their own people, kill them, exchange territory and have done with it.

A safe place to be if World War Three does erupt will probably be space. Sadly, 'N Sync's Lance Bass won't be making it, as he failed to raise the cash required for his high-profile jaunt into the beyond. Today is a 3.3 - Thursday, 12th September will be an 11.0. Mark my words.

!ti hguorht ees reven lliw esenihC ehT

More on the Namibian president, who is now on a quest to become the most well known Namibian globally, trying to beat Frank Fredericks. He does have some excellent points however. Too much of the first world aid given to Africa, even the untied aid, is underwritten by an assumption that when we say we want Africa to “develop” we want them to become like us. However, as was on the op-ed page of the Telegraph today, “Wealthy does not mean healthy.” If we really wanted Africa to develop for sheer altruistic reasons, then a lot of the current strife over land reform that has degenerated into sheer bigotry and racism could have been minimised. Similarly, I doubt AIDS would be as big a problem had the patent issue concerning anti-HIV drugs not been stalled due to “concerns” by the drug companies. It seems we’re scared that if we give Africa a loose leash, then they may turn out to be different from us, or, dare we say it, better. But then the acts in Zimbabwe are hardly Africa’s best way of saying “give us a chance.” And so it will continue…

In other news, Blair seems ready to commit the UK to war. At least he’s going through the motions.

Rating – 3. Nothing spectacular.

I scored 4 as well.

So, the Summit is still ongoing, albeit tepidly. Highlight of the day was not the elephant dung, rather Mr Mugabe’s defence of his land policies and attack on Britain, followed somewhat curiously by the Namibian president saying “We here in southern Africa have one big problem, created by the British.” The real shame is that, according to the article, Mr Blair was not in the room at the time – if he had been, that would have been a debate worth watching.

The Summit’s primary focus, of course, is the environment – it being the official followup to Kyoto and Rio. Hence it was with some joy that the Co-op introduced the first totally degradable shopping bag. As I mentioned in a previous column, the proposed tax on plastic bags is an excellent idea, and now, even before the tax has been implemented, we have seen some action. One caveat – is there a difference between “degradable” and “bio-degradable”?

Finally, the Chinese authorities appear to have banned Google! Not exactly the most surprising development for an administration that seems intent on controlling every piece of information in the world’s second largest country, but I would love to see how they are managing how to do it. Besides, I wonder what “google” – a lovely word in English (that is based, IIRC, on ‘googol’ which is 1 with one hundred zeroes after it) - becomes when translated.

Rating: 2.5 and with parliament back soon, the coming of the mid term elections in the States and it being “back to school” things are bound to become more interesting soon.

If you disagree with someone strongly enough, dropping a pile of elephant dung on their desk seems a good enough way of showing it (maybe they were snorkelling elephants... see OJ's column yesterday). But if your opponent is a committed organic gardener, your insult immediately turns into a useful gift. Whoops. What would make this even worse? Well, it would be pretty silly if it happened in the middle of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Other gaffes and gripes (arguments over sugar sachets, the lack of toilets and more) can be found in BBC journalist Alex Kirby's Summit Diary.

It seems that some, if not most of the delegates and officials at the summit lack a certain amount of culture. They aren't the only ones - the general media consensus appears to be that the British public are beginning to dredge the barrel of cultural prowess. London, certainly, is frequently derided as having a crime record that threatens New York's darkest days - Bjork's flat was burgled on Friday and Joan Collins has left for the Big Apple after deciding London was too dangerous (her daughter was mugged in the capital last year). Some people would argue that David Beckham's choice of name for his new son, Romeo, was culturally challenged at best.

But then, who am I to complain? I only scored 4 out of 10 in the BBC's 'How Cultured Are You?' quiz.

Meanwhile, having successfully confused everyone over his opinion on war with Iraq, Tony Blair has launched what is termed a 'thinly veiled' attack on the USA's decision to withdraw from the Summit. Then Mugabe launched a broadside at Blair, and the Summit threatens to become a slanging match - of course, given the events in that diary, it is already. Today receives a 3.0.

A slightly shorter column today, and a welcome break for yourselves, as some recent posts of mine have been quite lengthy.

There is consternation over Karem Chatty, the Swedish man of Tunisian origin who took a gun on board an aircraft bound for Britain. Not only are the Swedish police in a hectic rush to form a water-tight case against Chatty, before the two-week period in which he is allowed to remain in custody without charge expires, but they are also suggesting he may have been just one man in a wider conspiracy. With the first anniversary of the hijackings of 11th September looming, I'm not sure whether the media have leapt at the chance for a sensation (Chatty's lawyer said the following: "He is Muslim, he is flying and he has a gun and it's close to 11 September. That makes people draw quick conclusions.") Alternatively, we could have narrowly avoided a macabre reminder of last year's events, as police suspect Chatty might have targeted a European US Embassy.

The air industry has not had a good week. Not only has Chatty cast fresh doubts over security in the air, but the scandal of faulty fuel pumps in thousands of Boeing aircraft across the globe has dented consumer confidence in flying yet again. The last thing the airlines needed, having only just begun to recover from 9/11 (see this special BBC report on aviation from last month), was a week like this. Can we ever be assured of safety in the skies?

One person I talked about last week found great safety in an aircraft - Faustino Asprilla did a runner when he apparently realised that Third Division football team Darlington were actually serious about signing him, and was last seen in the Middle East. He did, however, later apologise, saying that the wage package the club offered him was 'not enough to live on'. Somehow I expect the vast majority of people would have taken them up on it. Today receives a 3.4 as fresh questions have been asked about British security, and in addition to that, no one appears sure exactly where Blair stands on war with Iraq. The BBC says for, CNN says against.

Down periscope and dive!

"He is Muslim, he is flying and he has a gun and it's close to 11 September," Mr Uggla said. "That makes people draw quick conclusions." Not the most surprising conclusion, it has to be said, but still another ominous event in the post-WTC world. As for the merits of the actual case, it seems to be an exercise in confusion and blame - no motive has been ascertained, and the idea of a gun on aeroplane and crashing into the US embassy seems to be an easy way out. You can draw your own conclusion. For me, the real story here is that no matter what the intent was, he was caught trying to take a gun on a plane. A year ago, I doubt that would have been the case. Maybe we are doing something right.

Rating: 3 - and rising as we come up to the first year anniversary of September 11.