Harry's on a roll

Harry posted late last night about the difference in the way the Guardian and the London Times have reported on the results of the constitutional vote in Iraq, read the whole thing here.

"...a line from the final doom-laden paragraph which reveals a lot about Steele's thinking:

"The result gives President Bush a political boost by paving the way for national elections on December 15, the next milestone in his effort to show progress towards democracy in Iraq."

"Got that? The adoption of Iraq's democratic constitution is a political boost not for Iraq and it's long suffering people but for George Bush....But I'm beginning to wonder. Is this sort of reaction really just resentment at the fact that a right-wing Republican has promoted a war which is leading to the creation of a democratic republic in Iraq? "

"Or is it not more the case that the likes of Steele actually find something deeply horrifying in the very idea of Arabs choosing democracy."

"...In contrast here is Rosemary Righter in The Times: "

"...Yet even more people voted this time than in January."

"The robustness of the Iraqi commitment to the political process is beyond remarkable. So listen, you defeatists and cynics who said that this couldn’t be done, shouldn’t even be attempted: however confused the outcome may be, the democracy that you patronisingly declared that Iraqis could never handle is taking shape. By all means sneer when Bush and Blair talk about progress, but lay off the Iraqi people. They are not the benighted fools you took them for; and their courage puts us all to shame."

Now what's going to happen, as it looks to me like Harry's accusing that Guardian writer of the r-word, and there's no Joan Rivers around to splutter with anger, partly because, well, he couldn't be right, could he?