|
 So what if he does own three TV channels, anyway? In America, there is no law that bars such a man from being president.
As for the Italian press, 90 per cent is left-wing - even Il Corriere della Sera, Italy's equivalent of the Times, is to the left (not "centre-right", as the Sunday Telegraph defined it).
Second, British journalists find it unacceptable that a man who, as the Guardian put it, is "the embodiment of a culture of corruption" can lead a civilised nation.
To which I say: this, my friends, is Italy. Get real. The Left is just as corrupt.
More important, British journalists have a conceptual problem with the notion that prosecuting judges in a civilised nation can be politically motivated. Well, sorry, but in Italy they very often are.
Since (and only since) Berlusconi decided to enter politics in 1994, he has been prosecuted (but he has never been convicted) 90 times. Even a cursory glance at the "evidence" against David Mills that he
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| If Berlsuconi was a total failure, why did Italians elect him prime minister twice? Why was his party the most voted for? |
|
|
|
allegedly accepted a $600,000 bribe from Berlusconi in return for false testimony reveals the accusation - which was announced during the election campaign - to be baseless.
If Berlusconi was a total failure, why did Italians elect him prime minister twice? And why was his party the most voted for in this election?
Berlusconi was not a failure. He was Italy's only hope. Like Margaret Thatcher, whose bust he keeps on his desk, he required a third term.
Just as President Chirac caved in to those who want to turn the clock back in France, so too, in rejecting Berlusconi by a whisker at the polls, has Italy.
Now, incredibly, Prodi is prime minister. It was absurd of the Economist, standard-bearer of free-market values, to criticise those in France who oppose labour law reform as reactionaries, yet to describe Prodi in its pre-election cover story as "closer to the way of thinking of the Economist" than Berlusconi. 
|
go back...
