If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Alastair Campbell
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Who the hell is this man anyway? Why has this Labour government changed the way things are done and delegated so much power into an unelected, control-freak spin doctor?
What is too fucking incredible for words is that a spin doctor supposedly in charge of media relations for the government was given the task of managing the Iraq WMDs dossiers. Dossiers in which the decision of going to war was going to be based in. Surely this is a job for the government itself or independently appointed experts??? Not an unelected Labour Party employee and an arrogant bully at that.
And now the cocky bastard sees it fit to demand an apology from the BBC and give them a deadline to do so. Just who the hell does he think he is?
In any case, what has been proven beyond doubt is that Campbell went on the Internet, nicked a 12-year-old thesis created by a student and used it for the dossier without even bothering to check how much was true and how much speculation. The government based his infamous '45 minutes notice' claim on this piece of shit. If that is not 'sexing up' a dossier someone tell me what is.
For the first time in 11 years the Tories are today ahead of Labour in the polls. With corrupt, arrogant unelected cronies like Campbell seemly in charge of the government, is it a surprise Labour are going down?
What is too fucking incredible for words is that a spin doctor supposedly in charge of media relations for the government was given the task of managing the Iraq WMDs dossiers. Dossiers in which the decision of going to war was going to be based in. Surely this is a job for the government itself or independently appointed experts??? Not an unelected Labour Party employee and an arrogant bully at that.
And now the cocky bastard sees it fit to demand an apology from the BBC and give them a deadline to do so. Just who the hell does he think he is?
In any case, what has been proven beyond doubt is that Campbell went on the Internet, nicked a 12-year-old thesis created by a student and used it for the dossier without even bothering to check how much was true and how much speculation. The government based his infamous '45 minutes notice' claim on this piece of shit. If that is not 'sexing up' a dossier someone tell me what is.
For the first time in 11 years the Tories are today ahead of Labour in the polls. With corrupt, arrogant unelected cronies like Campbell seemly in charge of the government, is it a surprise Labour are going down?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I'm not going to argue with much of what you said, but on this issue I think he was right.
If the BBC are going to publish these stories and then continue to do so even after they have been disputed then they should back up their allegations. That they continue - even yesterday - to report this story as FACT just compunds that.
It does seem that the BBC are trying to create a story out of this (not Campbell's comment, but the original report) and that like many journo they won't let facts get in the way.
The whole war issue has brought up many issues about reporting standards in this country, many of which have been covered here. I agree that they BBC had an agenda right from the start and have continued to persue that agenda. Much of their reporting over the past few months has failed to live up to the "independence" which they want to promote.
Weren't these two issues in separate reports? The "45 minute" issue was in a report last year, which the PM delivered following the recalling of Parliament.
The "thesis" report was published in Feb and, as you say, was used as the basis ofr the PM to get support for the war.
I was actually listening to the edition of Radio 4's Today programme that sparked much of the controversy. What Andrew Gilligan said is that a senior British intelligence official had told him that the government's first dossier on Iraq's weapons programme, published last September, had been "sexed up" at Downing Street's request.
Now I admit there is a corroboration problem with this. Any whistleblower within the secret services does so at his own risk and will almost certainly get a jail sentence for his efforts. The official who made those declarations will remain anonymous so it is very difficult to prove or disprove such allegations.
However it is everybody's impression that the government did intervene to make the dossiers more damning than they actually were. The inclusion of highly unreliable defector accounts and of student papers in the dossiers and the attempted passing of them as evidence is surely proof of tampering. The only question is whether this was done by the secret services free will or at the request of the government. The secret services have been quick to deny any willing involvement in this, and I think everyone can make their minds up about who is telling the truth.
You are right about that. The 45 minute claim was indeed presented in an earlier report, and if memory serves came from a single, highly unreliable source (a defector well known for telling porkies). Again, the claims are that the government and Campbell insisted on including his testimony as evidence even though the secret services warned he was completely unreliable. This can also be regarded as 'sexing up' and again I have no doubt who is telling the truth between the government and the secret services.
Perhaps the BBC should have not presented all this as 'fact' but like its spokesman has said the BBC "did not need to be taught about corroborating sources by a communications department which had plagiarised an article in an academic journal."
Blair and Campbell are always quick to demand those who doubt Iraq's WMD capabilities to prove their allegations. This is an extraordinary claim coming from the people who have failed to provide a single thread of evidence to support their own, wild and seemly untrue allegations.
Oh, I do agree with you on the point that the document is suspect, but one of the very reasons that it is suspect is because the BBC report unsubstantiated allegations, these are then picked up by other branches of the media - each reporting them as FACT. The brings into question the Govt reliability. Fine, I don't have a problem with that, but just as one of their credibility issues is because they spin stories to suit their ends (i.e propaganda) so it will be with the media if they create a story out of nothing. There is sufficient newsworthyness in much of the anti-war agenda, this story could help to undermine that.
Oh, and the person who first referred to the document as being "sexed-up" should be shot.
Which is the very point at issue. THe BBC claim as FACT, that Campbell did it - thus undermining him.
Not that they could possibly have anything against him personally now, could they.
Remember eveyone in this story has an agenda to push...
You truly amaze me MoK, youre essentially saying that youd prefer to blindly let your govt lie and deceive you to pursue whatever criminal agenda they chose than to have the truth exposed so your leaders could be called to account for abuses both of their publically bestowed powers as well as of the trust of that same public.
Guess we should shoot the person who blew the lid off Watergate and the Iran Contra scandal as well. Heck, just turn a blind eye to whatever power hungry leaders want to foist on a heedless public.
Might even one day find yourself in a totalitarian autocracy with no rights at all and no mechanisms for holding elected leaders to that same "rule of law" that they preach so vociferously as applicable to everyone else.
It appears youd be perfectly comfortable with such developments. God forbid government should be forced to be more transparent! :rolleyes:
At least that is the impression I get.
Good discussion in Newsnight between Labour MP Stephen Pound, a Tory MP whose name escapes me and the presenter. Mr Pound was asked how on earth could Labour demand that the BBC does not present claims as fact when based on a single source when the government has done exactly the same with its dossiers... What they did not mention is that whereas the BBC source was at least reliable the government source couldn't be trusted to tell the time of day correctly.
The Tory MP was suggesting Alistair Campbell was now "out of control" and that the relative lack of support from the big Labour guns spoke volumes about the whole affair. And he added "You live by spin, you die by spin".
Not very often you hear something clever to come out of the mouth of a Tory, but this sure was one such occasion.
Its hard to prove the BBC argument if it was security personnel, but it doesnt make it any less true. Id believe the BBC over some tosser who used to work for the Daily Mirror any day of the fucking week.
Nothing wrong with the Daily Mirror.
Spot on. Lousy expression and poor use of the English language. I suspect that it was the very reporter in question.
And again, it was based on a hidden agenda and driven by the fact that Campbell has kicked Tory ass since Blair took over Labour leadership.
The story in question says that it was Alistair Campbell who inserted the "45 minute" clause into the document. This is a very important point. He claims that it came from the JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) Chairman and was based on "intelligence". Difficult to prove either way, but to make such a claim the BBC needs to be 100% certain of their position and I don't think that they can be, and they certainly cannot back down now because it would expose them to the [in my opinion very real] claim that this is an attempt to unseat Campbell.
@ Clandestine, the reporters on the Watergate story corroborated their evidence. Interesting difference.
You took it on faith that the govt had "conrete evidence and intelligence that Saddam Hussein was a threat and backed all their arguments for necessary invasion before the fact, I remember your ardent agreement with it and your agreement with Greenhat time and time again. But now when revelations emerge and not just in the UK but globally of forged documents on components for supposed nuclear bombs and tons of chemical weapons ready for firing at us in 45 minutes and long range missiles (which i seem to recall now known to have been exaggerated with regard to range for more dire spinnability) etc.. you say its all a lie and a political agenda???
Thats a pretty convenient dodge from having to address the criminal contempt for the public trust and the lengths to which they will try to use their power without account.
I may be mistaken, but although Woodward and Bernstein has "Deepthroat" as a source, they used his information to lead them in a direction which they then followed. They didn't print his claims directly.
As I said, that is a very important difference. Afterall, any member of Govt/Civil Service can make any level of allegation, but each needs to be substantiated...
Indeed I agreed with this. As did every single member of the Security Council.
Perhaps you have misread what I said??
This story may be persued because of another agenda. That being to get rid of Alistair Campbell. This story has nothing to do with WMD in reality.
Oh and todays reports suggests that the committe investigating this document believe that it was not Alistair Campbell who put in the "45 minute" aspect of the document...
Dude, we've been down this route. It's the same tactic which brought about the formation of the EU... On this occasion it happens to be something you disagree with
Umm perhaps you werent paying attention, but the Security Countil largely discounted the claims of necessary invasion and in the end despite the threat of veto from France and Germany, the US would not have gotten its necessary majority of votes anyways, which is why Bush decided to disrespect the UN and go ahead with his criminal action anyways.
Those who did agree apart from the UK were cojoled, bribed or intimidated into doing so.
Perhaps you were sleeping through all that.
I firmly believe that of all people, the Americans and the British were the most aware of all that Iraq posed no bigger threat than the principality of Andorra. That's why they had to doctor, manipulate, enhance and tamper documents with, to try and present a case for war where there was none.
Papers said today Campbell has declared the second dossier was "his idea". He was directly behind its production, and he or his staff were directly responsible for doing a Google search, picking up a paper written by a student and making it the basis of the second dossier. Campbell had said to the committee he "had made a mistake." A mistake? That's no fucking mistake! That is deliberate misleading, lying, cheating and doctoring! And I go back to my original question. Why does an unelected spin doctor who is not part of the government decide to create a new dossier, fill it with lies and deception and push the case of war? What interest did this man have in the war going ahead???
Sorry, but perhaps I was more awake than you were!
Resolution 1441 states that Saddam is a clear threat to the region and that resolution was backed by the entire Security Council.
I agree that the difference came when invasion was discussed. As we all know, it was how to deal with the threat from Saddam which created the split within the UN...
To get back to the point I am trying to make, this story concentrates on the role of Alistair Campbell. By concentrating on this point the BBC and other mdeia are not asking some of the questions which actually need addressing.
This invasion was entirely distinct, with an entirely distinct agenda and for purposes other than eliminating a regional (and more laughably global threat - since such did not exist).
As your other point, yes I agree... there are quite a list of questions, both about the Campbell affair and a host of unanswered questions on both sides of the Atlantic going all the way back to when Dubyah first took office.
The reason I feel the I know the BBC report was partly fabricated is that more money could have been raised by the IRA simply by calling it something else: food for poor Europeans or something. Also, it would have been an unnecessary risk legally to openly solicit arms for the IRA. And finally, almost all Americans refer to the UK as "friends". They don't say allie. They don't say trustworthy nation. They say "friends".
My feeling is the BBC has a liberal agenda that sometimes gets in the way of reporting facts. The liberal agenda was most evident on a fact no one can deny: the timing of the broadcast of the IRA fundraising. It came at the moment Blair was trying to gain support for supporting America in Iraq.
And now the BBC has got itself banned from Israel for the same kind of biased reporting.
You are obviously horrified at the concept that good patriot Americans could ever think of openly financing a terrorist organisation. Well I've got news for you: some of them have. Rather than blaming the BBC for saying what you don't want to hear you should examine the very complex situation regarding Northern Ireland, and the part some Irish-American citizens have played in financing the IRA.
And how exactly is the BBC biased on Israel? Do you mean that no one has the right to speak about Israel's illegal WMDs? Are the Israelis beyond accountability? Or do you believe that the BBC is filled with Jewish-hating liberals who should leave the Israelis alone as they have suffered enough in the past and now have the right to break every international law there is and amass all sorts of illegal weapons? :rolleyes:
The BBC operates with neither a liberal nor conservative agenda, (for the hundredth time). :rolleyes:
If it's banned in Israel, this is clearly due to its willingness to expose the extent of the Sharon govt's lies as well as their completely disingenuous rhetorical pandering to the peace process whilst pursuing a daily agenda of repression and violence against the Palestinians (as is the status quo).
Most recently the BBC even exposed the political gagging and imprisonment of Mordecai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who exposed the extnsive nuclear, chemcial and biological weapons programs of the Izsraeli govt (against all international conventions and with full cooperation with Washington).
So, simply because you prefer to gorge yourself on the lies and spin and thoroughly sanitised news youre getting at home, rather than welcome revelations of the truth of just how much of the big picture you are being denied by the corporate US media, don't delude yourself that it's all some liberal plot. You only make yourself appear all the more ignorant and ill informed.
Wake up boy and pull the blinders away from those gullible young eyes.
I want all broadcasters to just report the facts OR mark an opinion as editorial.
Logic is a great way to tell if a broadcaster is telling the truth. And logically, the IRA could have raised more by disguising itself as a legitimate charity.
Regarding Israel, I haven't any idea of what weapons they have but why would they single out the BBC?
As far as I recall the IRA donations were in the guise of charities called something like Friends of Ireland or wasn't it something like they were donating to the children's charities in Ireland?
The BBC is banned because it is telling truths governments would rather not be released to the public. Hence why they are banned from Zimbabwe (although they sneak in to get some reports which shows the courage and dedication of their journalists) and now Israel because they show the international communities the damage Israeli bulldozers and F16s do to the Palestinians.
That I can see happening then because people would have thought they were helping poor people. It's the out-right support for bombings in Britian that I don't buy.
The Sun is reporting that the row is a smokescreen for Labour’s PUBLIC SPENDING agenda that failed. And then they listed all of the problems the government should be addressing instead of fighting with the BBC. Wonder if there's truth to that?
I wasn't saying that it did.
What I said was that the resolution stated that a) Saddam had WMD and b) that he posed a threat and that the resolution had the backing of the entire UNSC.
So, at some point everyone - even those opposed to war - agreed that he had WMD and was, at that moment, a threat to world peace. They just disagreed (fundamentally) on how to deal with this threat.
Oh come on PNJ - that is how these things work, you create "charities" which are actually cover organisations for donations to the IRA and the vast majority if not all those who donate will know this. The outright support comes from the way Britain treated Ireland during the years we ruled it when we ignored the vast majority of Irish people and took a generally friendly people and turned them against us and have made several major attacks on the Irish that lives on in their collective memory - Battle of the Boyne, Easter Rising and Bloody Sunday to name but three and so those Irish people who do support the campaign of terrorism on Britain see it as revenge to achieve their aims.
The Sun is chatting pure BS as usual, Labour's public spending agenda hasn't failed in fact it's only now beginning to make an impact after Blair stuck to Tory spending plans for most of the first term starving the public services of even more cash, then the public services had to pay back the debts they were encouraged to build up in the Thatcher and Major years and it's only now that the public services are in a good enough position to be able to increase the quality of service to the public. The Sun is good for three things - Dear Deidre, Page 3 and Mystic Meg's Horoscopes - if you want proper news go elsewhere, even most people who read The Sun ignore its news pages.
Aladdin's definition is much more accurate, by diverting attention from the committee on to the row between Downing Street and the BBC Alistair Campbell is able to muddy the waters around the question of whether the Prime Minister and Campbell decieved the public. Due to the committee being heavily dominated by Labour MPs who may coincidentally be ambitious and loyal to their leader I can imagine it will say there's not enough evidence to say so. The verdict of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on the committee will be much more interesting. If you're very patient wait until 2033 when the truth will mainly be revealed when the Thirty Year Rule allows documents into the public domain when Blair and Campbell will probably be dead and so will be unaccountable for their actions.
What I find particularly amusing about the whole situation is Campbell's statement that he doesn't want "weaselly words, sophistry" from the BBC. Coming from a professional spin doctor, this strikes me as just a bit rich.