Didnt he later eat a bit of humble pie on the front?
and then astound again by saying circa 2005 that we shouldnt listen to the history books, because they tell us that invading Afghanistan always leads to a never-ending war, and this one is over and won, troops home by Christmas etc.

From the same Aaronovitch piece you quote:

“I was never in favour of this war mainly because of the threats of terrorism or WMDs. Getting rid of Saddam (and therefore the myriad afflictions of the Iraqi people) was enough. But the weapons were the pretext on which the invasion was sold to a lot of people in this country, and was attempted to be sold to the people of the world.”

Obviously you disagree with him about this, and fair enough. But it’s quite important, given that your criticism here is that Aaronovitch didn’t do enough to debunk misconceptions about WMD back in 2003, to note that so far as he was concerned the WMD were never the core of the case for war in the first place – he’s angry about the salesmanship, but not about the product. So, for him, debunking the WMD claims wouldn’t make him think the invasion wasn’t justified (I’m not suggesting this is a good time to have the argument all over again, but Aaronovitch’s position is at least coherent, even if you think it’s wrong). Because he didn’t base his support on those arguments, he didn’t look into them that hard.

Does this mean that Aaronovitch shouldn’t be allowed to criticise the use of dodgy statistics elsewhere when he sees them? I really don’t see why it does. It turns out he’s comprehensively nailed a piece of evidence used by advocates of a position you’re (I think) sympathetic to – and here you are complaining about his views on something else. Classic “whataboutery”.

“Whataboutery” is the new “straw man” on this site.

Yeah – it’s a great label for a really common argumentative fallacy. (Although this post is a straightforward ad hominem attack, so that’s two argumentative fallacies for your money.)

Aaronovitch is over two years behind SpyBlog.

Aaronovitch is just another Phillips. Someone who used to have principles but then like a whore, turns tricks for the punter who pays the most.

“I was never in favour of this war mainly because of the threats of terrorism or WMDs. Getting rid of Saddam (and therefore the myriad afflictions of the Iraqi people) was enough. But the weapons were the pretext on which the invasion was sold to a lot of people in this country, and was attempted to be sold to the people of the world.”

That is such a sack of shit. He has been sucking Blair/Bush cock on the war from the start.

“Aaronovitch is just another Phillips. Someone who used to have principles but then like a whore, turns tricks for the punter who pays the most.”

Translation: “Aaronovitch is someone who used to say things I agreed with but now says things I disagree with. The only possible explanation for this is that he doesn’t believe what he now says. Nobody could ever disagree with me in good faith, even about my casual assumption that prostitutes are scum.”

Why Mark, you think he was right about the Iraq war?

Sunny, I don’t see what that has to do with it. I think he honestly thinks he was right about the Iraq war, and believed the case he made for it at the time (predicated on getting rid of a dictator rather than on WMDs). Sally’s accusation is that he’s insincere – I don’t have any reason to think he is.

The point is that the question of whether Aaronovitch is arguing in good faith is completely separate from the question of whether Aaronovitch is right.

The thing which annoys me the most on The Internets (and believe me, it’s a looooooooong list) is the tendency of idiots to misuse the term ‘ad hominem’.

If someone has a proven habit of concealing information and arguing in a misleading fashion, then assuming they are likely to be doing that in a particular case isn’t a fallacy at all – it’s a rational use of prior knowledge.

And if someone has a proven habit of accepting strange claims at face value, and they debunk a particular set of strange claims that happen to go against their political beliefs, then pointing out that they are behaving strangely for doing so isn’t ‘whataboutery’ (*) – it’s a legitimate criticism of that person’s priorities.

If Justin were arguing that Aaro’s piece on cameras was *incorrect* because of his prior record, that would be an example of the ad hominem fallacy. He isn’t.

(*) it’s amusing to see the Decentists throwing back a term that was invented as a description of their entire debating style, but they are rather missing the point: whataboutery involves saying “for as long as the Taliban are stoning gays to death, you can’t criticise the US for blowing up wedding parties”. Saying “you criticised the US for blowing up wedding parties, but *endorse* the Taliban for stoning gays to death” is a legitimate criticism of Respect-type-nutters and not whataboutery at all…

“If Justin were arguing that Aaro’s piece on cameras was *incorrect* because of his prior record, that would be an example of the ad hominem fallacy. He isn’t.”

Fair enough, John B, I may have been wrong to construe Justin’s main message as “Don’t forget to keep hating David Aaronovitch – even if he is right sometimes, he’s been wrong on other stuff, so he’s still a twat and we needn’t take him seriously when he convincingly points out flaws in arguments we’re sympathetic to”.

And if you want to call me a “Decentist” and make assumptions about the debating techniques I use, purely on the basis that I evidently don’t think Aaronovitch is a twat (and you’re right, I don’t think he’s a twat) then, well, whatever.

(But for the avoidance of doubt, I think that “for as long as the Taliban are stoning gays to death, you can’t criticise the US for blowing up wedding parties” is a crass and stupid argument.)

Sunny, I don’t see what that has to do with it. I think he honestly thinks he was right about the Iraq war, and believed the case he made for it at the time (predicated on getting rid of a dictator rather than on WMDs). Sally’s accusation is that he’s insincere – I don’t have any reason to think he is.

Well, it is a bit dishonest of him to first say he would stop believing US press releases if the entire reason for why he supported the Iraq War turned out to be a bunch of lies… and then go on to feed us more US press releases. No? You don’t think anyone should be allowed to challenge his record?

It’s rather like those people who keep telling us they adamantly believe in human rights (and attack the left on the basis that apparently the left doesn’t) and then remain quiet when Israel showers a densely populated area with White Phosphorus.

It rather smells of bullshit doesn’t it? (regardless of whether David, who I actually think is more sensible than most former ‘Decent Lefties’, believed in the Iraq war or not for whatever reason).

Mark

” Sally’s accusation is that he’s insincere – I don’t have any reason to think he is.”

Translation

I don’t have a clue what I am talking about.

“Well, it is a bit dishonest of him to first say he would stop believing US press releases if the entire reason for why he supported the Iraq War turned out to be a bunch of lies”

Sunny, he didn’t say this. He said he would stop believing US press releases if the entire reason for why other people supported the Iraq war turned out to be wrong. That distinction is quite important, because it means that he can consistently continue to argue that the reason he supported the war still stands (as I keep saying, that doesn’t mean he was right, just that for him WMD were not the crux of the case for war).

On whether anyone should be allowed to challenge his record – yeah, of course they should. Who said they shouldn’t?

The other point is that although I think he was a bit hyperbolic to say that he would “never believe another thing that I am told by our government, or that of the US ever again” (most government announcements, most of the time, are boring and uncontroversially true), the wider point that he was insufficiently sceptical then and should be more sceptical in future is an important one. Taking things on trust is always dangerous. Hence his approach to this CCTV claim.

I think Aaronovitch is a dick and I don’t share his eagerness to have all my movements monitored by some drooling perv in a booth, but if he’s factually wrong about the number of cameras I will be seen on today I’d like to have the correct figures at hand before I have my next drunken rant on the subject.

Just responding that the aforesaid dick has been badly wrong before isn’t going to batter my opponents into submission.

Aaronovitch’s own words are worth repeating:

“I was never in favour of this war mainly because of the threats of terrorism or WMDs. Getting rid of Saddam (and therefore the myriad afflictions of the Iraqi people) was enough. But the weapons were the pretext on which the invasion was sold to a lot of people in this country, and was attempted to be sold to the people of the world.”

I opposed the war on Iraq, but I understand Aaronovitch’s misguided position. When Aaronovitch was involved in student politics in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Iraqi government sent agents to the UK to suppress dissidents attending UK universities. A student was stabbed at a public meeting by an agent at Nottingham University where I studied, and following the incident other post graduates received a visit from government agents. More scarily, the student union president (who I knew since he was wearing short trousers) was warned off with a handgun pointing to his head. So I can understand why Aaronovitch might argue for regime change.

Is this on camera:.