Great piece.

And I have to say…these are the things that really put you off Labour regardless. Because, let’s face it, Blair and Campbell happened yesterday and they didn’t happen in a vacuum. They had a party which, with some notable exceptions, allowed them to do so and for a prolonged period of time.
To these days Milliband and the “new generation”, let alone Gordon Brown, still cannot concede that the whole Iraq affair was fucked up.

One suspects that the Chilcott inquiry’s conclusions won’t be anywhere near as incisive.

Translation

One suspects that the Chilcott inquiry’s conclusions won’t be the one I want

Also you write t is also touching though, almost heart-warming to see just how loyal Blair’s ever faithful spin doctor remains to his former boss.

If Brown had been half as loyal to his boss i would have more respect for him. Just one of the reasons I wont be voting for labour for the first time in 35 years.

The evidence to the Inquiry is deliberately not on oath and Campbell just lied his way through from start to finish.
It was a bold & straightforward tactic that reveals much about his character.
It shouldn’t save him from war crimes charges at The Hague.

@4 You have proof of this i take it

What specifically is Campbell supposed to be lying about?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1242749/PETER-OBORNE-Tripped-trying-spin-history.html

Oborne was always against the war.

For a start Campbell told the inquiry the changes to the dossier were backed by evidence. That’s a straightforward porky. There was no evidence to justify the claim, in the foreword Campbell wrote, that it was “beyond doubt” Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Campbell claimed, pathetically, Blair was “beyond doubt” that Iraq had WMDs therefore the phrase was justified.

It’s pointless expecting Campbell to tell the truth, he’s a spindoctor, his job is to lie for money. He couldn’t tell the truth if he wanted to.

He was asked if the information given to parliament was misleading – that the evidence was detailed, persuasive, etc. He said it wasn’t. That’s a straightforward lie, as we already know that it was “sporadic”.

Sl, Mcshining -

Campbell, the papers have reported, described the September dossier as “cautious“. This ignores the documented fact that he, personally, made it much more hyperbolic. His dishonesty has been, to borrow a phrase, established beyond doubt.

Anyone had a look at Alistair campbells website of nicely filtered comments that support him (only about 4 of them -probably written by himself or his few burnley football cronies)
They should bring him and blair to account for spinning an illegal war through deceit and spin
He will go down as one of the most odious characters of our time.
They just don’t get it do they – It was an illegal war and just like otherleaders who have been tried there should be some show trials of people behind the international war crime.We cannot have double standards.If we can convict bosnian serb leaders for what was a civil war (where boundaries and circumstances are unclear) we can hold other western leaders who despite good advice re illegality of the possible actions forge ahead and bomb a sovereign state thereby killing many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Now that Holland has given a clear statement that it was an illegal war perhaps the hague (which is based in Holland) will listen and arrest these monsters.
The chilcott enquiry will be another whitewash -At least the dutch have a sense of decency!!!
Remember folk – Next time you are arrested for a crime you can just say that you believed in what you were doing and the reasons for doing it!

sl: Your translation is inaccurate I’m afraid. Considering the inquiry so far has been conducted in the same spirit of vibes and good faith as all the previous ones, it’s hardly likely to criticise anyone for anything, hence not incisive. And what Gordon Brown has to do with this, although Campbell attempted to bring him into it when it’s fairly plain that he did almost everything to avoid being connected with the decision whilst also not opposing it, I don’t know.

I also had a strong feeling of deja vu on listening to Campbell. The illogicality of what he was saying took me back to the original illogicalities of 2002 and 2003 that made me take an interest in the whole affair. Campbell says he stands by every word of the September 2002 dossier then doesn’t stand by the words “beyond doubt” (words which change the tenor of the dossier completely). This time though the press seem to notice the leaps in the logic.

@12 so acting in “good faith” is now a bad thing is it.

I still think my translation of your remark was accurate, you criticise the current inquiry, as no doubt you did the previous ones, strangely you praise the dutch one; how much do you know about the dutch one apart from the result did you follow it in dutch or maybe read the headlines in english.

As far as involving GB is concerned I thought my remark was very clear; it was the point about loyalty – which you initially raised.

sl, I think you’ll find the correct initials for “Sock Puppet” are ‘sp’.

Tootles.

Has Campbell got a guilty conscience? It is now clear that Campbell and Blair fabricated the “dossiers” as a cover for their real intentions. This leads to another question: why did they persecute Dr David Kelly, the British UN Weapons Inspector, when they probably knew he was right? Why did Kelly have to die? See The strange case of the death of Dr David Kelly, UN Weapons Inpector.

@16 ffs

It is now clear that Campbell and Blair fabricated the “dossiers”

And your evidence is?

Kelly broke his terms of employment, he broke the law, he got caught, he killed himself. Shame all of this happened, but there you are.

sl: “And your evidence is?”

Well, the first dossier, the “dodgy dossier” was just a copy of a piece on the internet. So I am half way there.

The second dossier was written because Blair and Campbell were caught out by the first dossier. This is grounds enough to reject it. It would be rejected in court on this basis:

Defendent: “Your honour, I have here a dossier that proves X is so!”
Judge: “But this is just a copy of an article from a comic book”
Defendent: “Very well your honour, I shall now go and produce another dossier that says the same thing but with signatures from all of the people I employ or who owe me something”.
Judge: “But you have already demonstrated that you will not be acting in good faith and a common law jurisdiction cannot accept submissions where the good faith of the submission is in serious doubt”.

Actually, diverting attention into whether or not Blair and Campbell produced the “45 minute warning” in good faith is a diversion away from the fact that the whole document was not produced in good faith.

Anyway, suppose we accept “sl’s” diversion for the moment. The simple fact was that Dr Kelly was a UN Weapons Inspector of impeccable record and he advised the government that there was no such threat. Ipso Facto Blair and Campbell produced the warning against best advice. There is nothing from other sources in the Second Dossier to compete with Kelly’s direct experience.

sl: “Kelly broke his terms of employment, he broke the law, he got caught, he killed himself. Shame all of this happened, but there you are.”

The suicide or not is not the point. The government used a piece of legislation that applied to train crashes to disband a coroner’s inquest because a coroner’s court would have been forced to bring in an “open verdict” (see The strange case of the death of David Kelly, UN Weapons Inspector). They used the Inquiry into Kelly’s death to institute a witch hunt against the media, something that was way outside the original terms of reference and would not have occurred in a Coroner’s court. A new coroner’s court should be instituted. This bullying is intolerable in a free country.

Is “sl” a government apparatchik?

And your evidence is?

It wasn’t entirely made up, of course, but there were fabrications…

http://iraqdossier.com/sexing/judgement
http://iraqdossier.com/sexing/more

…as well as distortions…

http://iraqdossier.com/sexing/thelanguage

…some of them stemming from Alistair Campbell…

http://iraqdossier.com/sexing/campbell
http://iraqdossier.com/sexing/nuclear

Ben

#18
Is “sl” a government apparatchik? Answer no – i can prove this.

Is John a conspiracy nut? er…

Nice site Ben Six. I liked the JIC statement:

“based on judgement and assessment” in the face of “limited” intelligence”

Compare this limited intelligence with Kelly’s direct experience.

sl: “Is John a conspiracy nut?”

There is nothing controversial about the facts I have laid out here. Kelly’s Coroner’s Court hearing was indeed squashed by using an inappropriate piece of legislation. Given that Hutton confirms that neither the pills ingested nor the venous wounds in the wrist slashing were the cause of death an “open verdict” would have been the outcome of a Coroner’s Court. Normally this would allow the family to collect life insurance etc. It is also a matter of record that Hutton went way beyond Kelly’s death and became a kangaroo court representing the interests of the Government, not the interests of the family or the nation.