Self-rebutting conspiracy theories

I am literally astonished at the way anti-war myths about Iraq continue to sustain themselves in the “reporting” and re-reporting of non-stories. The latest example was the decision by The Sunday Telegraph to devote several pages, including its front-page lead story, to the logical absurdity of “Tony Blair committed us to war in advance”.

Not only that but the “The Questions Blair Must Answer” is so 2011, when the entire British media decided it could draft the forensic interrogation better than the Chilcot inquiry.

Well, it’s anniversary journalism, I thought. They’ve got to put something in the newspaper. And of course it has been picked up and re-reported on anti-war websites all over the world.

Nothing so surprising about any of that, obviously, but today The Times (pay wall), of all newspapers, feebly re-published this flim-flam under the laughably self-rebutting headline, “Bush ‘was given reassurances of Blair’s Iraq position before UK public’.”

I do not really need to wheel out the old logo (above). Not only was the Sunday Telegraph report self-rebutting, in that Tony Blair’s public position was clear from at least 1996, when as leader of the opposition he joined John Major in supporting US cruise missile strikes against Saddam Hussein, the newspaper did readers the favour of commissioning Christopher Meyer, former British ambassador to Washington to rebut it: “I do not believe that at Crawford an irrevocable decision to go to war was taken.” (The Crawford meeting was in April 2002.)

How hard is this for people who opposed the war to understand? Tony Blair said publicly that Saddam had to be dealt with, by force if necessary. That he would support a US invasion was obvious. That was why 1m people marched in February 2003. He was not able to “commit” the UK to join a US invasion, however, because that required decisions by the Cabinet and the House of Commons.

To answer my own question, I think it is because people who opposed the war feel so strongly that they cannot accept that reasonable people, including ministers and the rest of the 412 MPs who voted for military action, could have done so for the reasons given. Therefore there must have been some secret deal done, with the consent of the Cabinet and Parliament secured by fabrications.

All this has been explained before (here, here and here), and it will all be explained again.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• The Dawn of Time
• The Fiction of Gatsby
• Why "build more houses" is not The Answer
• Cameron on Gay Marriage Should Make Us Proud
• What Focus Groups Say About Ed Miliband

• http://twitter.com/blairsupporter Blair Supporter

  My goodness! Until I checked this comment trail I hadn’t realised that John Rentoul & Chris Ames were almost at swords-at-dawn over this. You won’t persuade each other. There is selective quoting & interpretation, esp from those that are convinced Tony Blair is the worst thing since er… sliced bread. If ‘we few, we happy few’ don’t know that by now, we’ll never know. Anyway, I’ll hold your coat, John.

• porkfright

  Oooh! Conspiracy Theorists ! Some people round here would be over the moon if at some time the wacky bunch of Neocons somehow actually managed to establish their thousand-minute whatsitsname and rounded on those naughty conspiracy people. And what’s a theoristin ? Is it like a Theremin ?

• porkfright

  It was Lobby Lud. You appear to know little.

• porkfright

  Whoo! You actually believe the official story. “Join the Dots” is clearly not your strong suit.

• porkfright

  Oh yes there were. But they just haven’t found which patio they are buried under yet.

• plumplum

  Saddams brinkmanship was never the reason for the illegal invasion. Just a pathetic excuse. Saddam had previously offered full cooperation. It was ignored.
  You don’t put that much material and men on a countries borders and then just sit there, to walk away.
  Further more, the UN inspector reports were ignored, of have you forgotten the names Scott Ritter.
  Oh, here’s another name.. Kelly.
  It is “useful idiots” like you that give these monsters the continuing publicity oxygen that decent people would have cut off.

• plumplum

  Ahh… Those are the problems you see..
  Unexpected unknown unknowns..
  Unexpected cost blow outs and shifting desert sands and alliances.
  Western oil companies are doing OK, don’t worry, but when did the business elites EVER worry about the taxpayer picking up their bill? Seriously now, get real.

• Susan G.

  Not to mention that Alistair Campbell is on record as saying that the dossier needed ‘hardening up’ ( which he did) to make the case for war. Bit of a slam dunk, I agree.

• Helen Sippo

  You will never get through to the conspiracy theorists (ie, anti-American, anti-government [Western], anti-military [Western], anti-anything as long as it’s the opposite view). They cannot be fought with logic, sense, anything – they are not going to change. Let them be miserable, let them chew their own ‘fat’ – not worth bothering with/about.

  Conspiracy ‘theorists’ – there is a better word for them (‘troublemaker’ perhaps; ‘egotist’? They do purport to know better than the professionals [witness the crap re the destruction of the towers 9/11 - the Government did it, of course, I don't know why everyone but they (them?) can see that!

  Why is it that conspiracy egotists seem to be mostly male? They are the ones who get into snide, vicious, immature, etc, arguments (witness all the commenters above going at each other's throats) over NOTHING. All one has to do is write/say something pro-Government, pro-American, pro-Western, whatever, and out comes the vitriol and ridicule (try YouTube - notorious for the vitriol, slander, bs, everything [and that's just from and between adults]).