Interesting article on the International Herald Tribune site comparing Blair's recent comments on the drivers behind Iraq with Bush's gung-ho approach. While Blair has not apologised for the act of waging war, he has apologised for the mis-information that led up to this. Given that the former was wholly dependent on the latter, I don't quite see how this works. The article itself was featured in Google's world news - no such article would be likely to appear in the American section.
The US has been far less bothered about the drivers behind Iraq (to the extent that Giuliani tried to justify the war by referring to Saddam Hussein himself as a WMD at the Republican National Convention), and Bush seems to have avoided the spotlight that Blair has been under for over a year. I think this is down to the British public being better informed than the Americans, although I also think that the American public is more easily swayed by sound-bites and diversion tactics. The questioning of Kerry's Vietnam record is a good example of this, as is the recent CBS debacle over Bush's history, prompting a great quote from Jay Leno - "Dan Rather put the BS in CBS". The American media loves the tabloid-esque stories that this sort of material generates, and with six weeks left until the election, the focus is still on the candidates' histories (both recent and less so) as opposed to their underlying policies.
Talking of Leno, he's given five years' notice for his job hosting NBC's The Tonight Show. I quite like Leno, although the format of these shows - Letterman included - grates with me somewhat. The sad, sad news is that Conan O'Brien will be replacing him. While we all have five years to prepare for this, Conan's comedy skills are non-existent, and his manner is irritating to say the least (to a similar degree to Paul Shaffer, the annoying musician on Letterman). Apparently, he (O'Brien, not Shaffer) has his followers, but there again, so does Bush.
