(The spinning technique would be a briefing by Alistair Campbell's representative in Washington, analysing the situation in an apparently dispassionate way, drawing attention subtly to some complications within the American position. If I am right, what was successful about this little sound bite in shaping the news, is that it has displaced bigger UK government anxiety about Rumsfeld allegedly into the mind of Bush. This deflects attention away from dilemmas within the UK government, and exacerbates dilemmas within the US administration, thereby weakening the worst opponents of the UK and if necessary preparing the ground for it to be Bush rather than Blair who will be the fall guy for this debacle.
I understand the front page of the (London) Times tilts heavily against Rumsfeld. It leads on the potential risks of Rumsfeld enlarging the belligerency to Syria and Iran. Beside this it has an item with a mocking headline about the US running out of beans, and therefore requiring a delay in the attack on Baghdad. I have not read the article in detail and I am not suggesting that this is an outright sarcastic attack. But the title suggests a tilt of disprespect towards the US military position. Such tilts and innuendos signal shifts in the perceived wisdom of the ruling forces in society.
Of course it is possible that Rumsfeld deliberately decided to attack Syria for allegedly supplying night goggles to deflect attention away from the difficulty in the US providing a steady flow of beans, but he is probably not that clever in news manipulation. Certainly not on past performance.
Chris Burford London
