The Great Defamation, part 194

Feeble addition to the Daily Mail’s propaganda campaign against a war eight years ago about which it hedged its bets at the time. It would appear that the newspaper has bought the rights to Gordon Corera’s new book, The Art of Betrayal, but that, as might be expected of a scrupulous journalist such as Corera, it failed to provide the smoking cliché that Paul Dacre wanted.

Some unfortunate, Tony Rennell in this case, was therefore assigned the task of writing a standard anti-war screed, which refers occasionally to uncontentious stuff from Corera’s book.

Needless to say, there is nothing in the text to support the sub-headline’s assertion that “MI6 – under pressure from Blair and Campbell – produced bogus evidence to make the case for the Iraq war”. What this means is that MI6 reported evidence that turned out to be false. However, the clear implication is that it knew that it was false when it produced it, and that it did so because it was “under pressure” from Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, which is the Great Defamation peddled by the antis since May 2003.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• UKIP Surges to Record High
• Poll alert
• Was An Alien Space Fish Just Filmed Outside The Space Station?
• Economic History Lesson
• A Triumph for David Cameron

• JohnBEllis

  There’s been so much mis-speak and obfuscation of this entire complex story from start to finish that I can’t quite recall. But in the prelude to the invasion I became gradually more and more convinced that we were being fed a set of fanciful tales to justify a predetermined agenda, and everything that has emerged since has tended, for me, to confirm that conviction.

  And to reinforce the sense that there are cynically pragmatic limits to our much-trumpeted democracy. And, probably, to any nation’s democracy. The fact is that once we entrust power to any individual or group, they have the edge over us. As, on the law of averages, they’re likely to be no more virtuous than the rest of us, they’re likely to abuse their fellow-citizens’ trust to some degree.

  And, of course, if we’re foolish enough to fall for the sharp rhetoric of some fluent and amoral visionary who’s good at convincing us precisely because he can convince himself of a venture that seizes his imagination, we find ourselves rolled into situations like the Iraq war.

• coventrian

  1. Saddam did allow free access – Blair and Bush cut short the inspection process so that it couldn’t prove Iraq to be WMD-free.

  2. The action taken wasn’t through the UN anyway.

  3. Iraq denied over and over again that they had WMDs, Blair didn’t take Saddam at face value then did he?

• JohnJustice

  Coventrian, like others of your ilk you ignore the detail of a point when it works against you. UN resolution 1441 required IMMEDIATE and FULL cooperation with the inspectors. Blix himself admitted in his last report-back to the Security Council that although progress had been made cooperation was neither immediate or full. So free access was not given to the extent required under 1441.

  The inspection process had not been cut short: indeed it had been
  extended to give Saddam one last chance.

  There was therefore a UN mandate for the action that was taken,
  whatever you guys say.

  Iraq’s denials were against the background I described of non-compliance
  with UN resolutions. So it was reasonable to assume that he was lying. Indeed Saddam admitted to the Iraq Survey Group after the invasion that
  he was trying to give the impression that he still had WMD for deterrent purposes. He was caught out by his own double bluff.

  Look all this up before coming back to rubbish it.

• aardvark10

  Still not had an answer. If MI6 was not being pressurised by Campbell, what the hell was he doing at their meetings?

• bobbellinhell

  I can’t believe I’m reading this – has John Rentoul just admitted that the information about Iraq possessing biological and chemical weapons, which could hit Britain at 45 minutes’ notice, was false after all? Can he get Tony Blair to comment on this astounding revelation – I’m sure his decade of devotion would be rewarded with a quick interview, TB must have some spare time in between endlessly explaining to the Americans how he was right all along and acting on information given to him directly by God.

• coventrian

  The Iraq Survey Group was a CIA operation, you may believe it – I don’t.

  Blix has said he was only a short time away from declaring Iraq WMD free. He wanted more time, Blair and Bush were determined to go to war and so wouldn’t give it to him.

  Finally it is accepted that Iraq had been WMD-free for years by the time of the invasion, so it had complied with the UN resolutions.

  ps How does it feel to be an apologist for a torturer and mass-murderer?

• JohnJustice

  The UN resolutions were not about Iraq being WMD free but about giving inspectors immediate and full access to verify that there were no WMD. Since neither of these conditions were met the assumption had to be that he was hiding something, whether he was or not. Get it now?

  And yes, how does it feel to be an apologist for the torturer and mass murderer that was Saddam Hussein?

• coventrian

  I do not defend Saddam Hussein, that is a lie. You however are proud to defend Tony B£air, responsible for the torture and deaths of more people than Saddam. You seem to have a little regard for his victims as your hero.

• coventrian

  Questions to which the answer is ‘Yes’.

  No.1

  Did deference to Murdoch oil the wheels of invasion?

  By Eamonn McCannWednesday, 3 August 2011

  Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/did-deference-to-murdoch-oil-the-wheels-of-invasion-16031036.html#ixzz1VDGeGS48

• coventrian

  Questions to which the answer is ‘Yes’.

  No.1

  Did deference to Murdoch oil the wheels of invasion?

  By Eamonn McCann

  Wednesday, 3 August 2011

  Belfast Telegraph

  hxxp://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/eamon-mccann/did-deference-to-murdoch-oil-the-wheels-of-invasion-16031036.html