Paul Reynolds, the BBC World Affairs correspondent, has written a very one-sided article on the BBC website about the US-UK relationship.
Mr Reynolds swallows the lines put out by Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to Washington, in his evidence to the Iraq war inquiry. He quotes Sir Christopher Meyer without qualification:
"During the lead-up to the war on Iraq in 2003, Britain failed to make its influence felt on two fronts. First, it did not insist, as the conditions for its support, on progress in the Middle East peace process and on better planning for post-war Iraq. Second, it did not get a commercial trade-off. Its demands for changes to an air services agreement and steel tariffs were ignored."
In reality, Britain's influence on Washington was enormous at the time. Tony Blair insisted on getting approval from the United Nations for the war. The UN route forced Britain and America to focus on the issue of WMD rather than the odious nature of the Saddam Hussein regime. Regime change is not permissible under 'international law'. The failure to then win UN approval undermined global support for the war from the off.
Reynolds goes on to conclude that "History, in fact, warns us not to expect too much from this transatlantic relationship." He then lists various of the disappointments in the US-UK relationship, only offering this throwaway effort at balance at the end of his piece: "What still counts is a security sharing arrangement and trust, which involves the US giving the UK a nuclear missile." "A nuclear missile?" Margaret Thatcher would agree that it amounted to a lot more than "a" nuclear missile.
I don't want to defend some of the 'downs' in the UK-US relationship. The current White House's behaviour towards Britain on Afghanistan, for example, is unacceptable. But there are 'ups', too, that Mr Reynolds chooses not to mention. Considerable 'ups'.
The whole western world shelters under the umbrella of America's huge investment in defence and intelligence. Without US naval power we would all be paying a great deal more to keep the high seas free of piracy, for example. Without US intervention in the Middle East, despotic regimes would probably be unchallenged and world oil prices would be much, much higher.
During the Falklands War - after a hesitant start - America helped enormously with the conflict against Argentina - especially with submarine detectors, missiles and aircraft fuel. The intervention on Britain's side soured US relations with much of Latin America for many years.
No two nations share more intelligence than Britain and America.
America remains the number one destination for UK overseas investment and the US remains the number one investor in the UK.
It's true that the relationship isn't as special as it once was but a public service broadcaster - like the BBC's Paul Reynolds - should have offered a much more balanced account of it.
Tim Montgomerie