Posted by John Hilley
on November 2, 2009, 5:07 pm, in reply to "Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""
Revealing stuff.
Paxman goes on:
"Next time I see a presentation from the American state department or the CIA about, I don't know, Iran's nuclear weapons programme, I shall look at it differently to the way I looked upon their presentation on the so-called presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq."
Looking forward now to Paxman/Newsnight enlightening the viewing public about the myth of the Iranian menace.
John
--Previous Message--
: Speaking to a global online audience from BBC
: Television Centre, as part of Coventry
: University 'Is World Journalism in Crisis?'
: event, Jeremy Paxman admitted he had made
: the wrong judgement call over evidence
: presented by Colin Powell in 2003, then US
: secretary of state:
:
: "As far as I personally was concerned,
: there a came a point with the presentation
: of the so-called evidence, with the moment
: when Colin Powell sat down at the UN General
: Assembly and unveiled what he said was
: cast-iron evidence of things like mobile,
: biological, weapon facilities and the
: like...
:
: "When I saw all of that, I said 'we
: know that Colin Powell is an intelligent
: thoughtful man, and a sceptical man. If he
: believes this to be the case; he's seen the
: evidence, I haven't.
:
: "Now that evidence turned out to be
: absolutely meaningless but we only discover
: that after the event. So I am perfectly open
: to the accusation that we were hoodwinked.
: Clearly we were."
:
: (http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/536290.php)
:
: That sums up the complacency of so many
: mainstream journalists. It wasn't beyond
: Paxman, or other journalists, to investigate
: the credibility of the claims - there was no
: need to take them on trust.
:
: Powell held up the vial of anthrax at the UN
: on February 5, 2003. We exposed his claims
: in an alert, five days later, on February
: 10, referencing the work of people like
: Scott Ritter, Glen Rangwala, the CIA and
: others. From our alert:
:
: "... it is entirely uncontroversial
: that Iraq is only known to have produced
: liquid bulk anthrax, which has a shelf-life
: of just three years. The last known batch of
: liquid anthrax was produced in 1991 at a
: state-owned factory. That factory was then
: blown up in 1996. Any remaining anthrax is
: therefore, by now, sludge. Blair, again,
: must surely be aware of this.
:
: "Professor Anthony H. Cordesman of the
: Center for Strategic and International
: Studies (CSIS) discounts the possibility
: that any Iraqi anthrax produced in bulk
: prior to 1991 could still be effectively
: weaponised:
:
: "'Anthrax spores are extremely hardy
: and can achieve 65% to 80% lethality against
: untreated patients for years. Fortunately,
: Iraq does not seem to have produced dry,
: storable agents and only seems to have
: deployed wet Anthrax agents, which have a
: relatively limited life.'
: ('Iraq's Past and Future Biological Weapons
: Capabilities', 1998, p.13
: http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/iraq_bios.pd
: )
:
: "Readers will recall that Colin Powell
: held up a vial of dry powder anthrax in his
: presentation to the United Nations,
: referring to the anthrax attacks on the
: United States. This is the anthrax that Iraq
: "does not seem to have produced",
: according to the Center for Strategic and
: International Studies. Powell is regularly
: described in the media as a 'dove'."
: (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/03/030210_Blairs_Betrayal1.html)
:
: We told Paxman about the evidence
: contradicting Powell, and he ignored us - a
: lot of people wrote to him about it. He
: chose to trust Powell rather than to use his
: capacity for critical thought.
:
: The Editors
:
:
:
Responses: