Posted by The Editors |
- He also ignored the MSM interviews and press conferences in 2001
Posted by OrwellianUK
on November 2, 2009, 5:06 pm, in reply to "Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""Which proved Powell and Rice were lying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU - Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked"
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
:
:
:
- Agreed - Eds, perhaps you can remind Paxman of his own words before he doublethinks them...
Posted by OrwellianUK
on November 2, 2009, 5:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""....out of existence again? - Re: Agreed - Eds, perhaps you can remind Paxman of his own words before he doublethinks them...
Posted by The Editors
on November 2, 2009, 5:26 pm, in reply to "Agreed - Eds, perhaps you can remind Paxman of his own words before he doublethinks them..."Orwellian, as Teddy Bass said in Sexy Beast: "Don't see why not."
Eds
- Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked"
Posted by The Editors
on November 2, 2009, 5:21 pm, in reply to "Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""John, we'be heard that before...
David Aaronovitch wrote in the Guardian of Iraq‘s alleged weapons of mass destruction:
"If nothing is eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war - will never believe another thing that I am told by our government, or that of the US ever again. And, more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere." (Aaronovitch, ‘Those weapons had better be there...,’ The Guardian, April 29, 2003; http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,945551,00.html)
Alas, four years later:
“When Tony Blair became Leader of the Opposition in 1994, he... knew little about foreign policy. What he did have was a series of instincts about how the Major Government and the international community had handled affairs in Bosnia, and he wasn't impressed. Ever the anti-fatalist, once in office he was inclined to see such problems as requiring a solution. And passing across his desk in autumn 1997 were a series of intelligence reports concerning the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and his weapons of mass destruction. ‘We cannot let him get away with it,’ he told Paddy Ashdown that November.”
(Aaronovitch, ‘Tony Blair: The war? I believed in it, I believed in it then, I believe in it now,’ The Times, November 17, 2007;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/the_blair_years/article2886677.ece)
Aaronovitch claimed he would never beleve Blair again, but here he claimed that "passing across his desk in autumn 1997 were a series of intelligence reports concerning the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and his weapons of mass destruction". As was obvious to just about everyone else in 2007, that wasn't true - there was nothing passing across Blair's desk to prompt his propaganda campaign, except perhaps orders from Bush.
Carne Ross, a key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for monitoring UN arms inspections in Iraq, said in 2005 that British government claims about Iraq's weapons programme had been "totally implausible". Ross told the Guardian:
"I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too." (Richard Norton-Taylor, 'WMD claims were "totally implausible",' The Guardian, June 20, 2005)
John Morrison, a former deputy chief of defence intelligence, commented on Blair‘s warnings of “a current and serious threat to the UK”: "When I heard him using those words, I could almost hear the collective raspberry going up around Whitehall." (Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Official sacked over TV remarks on Iraq,' The Guardian, July 26, 2004)
But Aaronovitch was happy to believe in 2007:
“The nightmare was the confluence of WMD with terrorism... and Saddam's continued defiance of UN resolutions seemed to confirm intelligence reports of continuing WMD capacity.” That was Blair's invention - nothing to do with reality.
We can expect much the same from Paxman as from Aaronovitch.
Eds
- Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked"
Posted by John Hilley
on November 2, 2009, 5:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""Thanks Eds.
"We can expect much the same from Paxman as from Aaronovitch."
Yes, of course.
It's a bit of a 'Greg Dyke moment', though more potentially damning in its implications given the human cost of the war while elite journos sat by and helped peddle the warmongers' lies. I wonder if Paxman's words will get any mainstream exposure at all? Techncally, he's in breach of BBC guidelines by expressing an open view.
John
--Previous Message--
: John, we'be heard that before...
:
: David Aaronovitch wrote in the Guardian of
: Iraq‘s alleged weapons of mass destruction:
:
: "If nothing is eventually found, I - as
: a supporter of the war - will never believe
: another thing that I am told by our
: government, or that of the US ever again.
: And, more to the point, neither will anyone
: else. Those weapons had better be there
: somewhere." (Aaronovitch, ‘Those
: weapons had better be there...,’ The
: Guardian, April 29, 2003;
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,945551,00.html
: )
:
: Alas, four years later:
:
: “When Tony Blair became Leader of the
: Opposition in 1994, he... knew little about
: foreign policy. What he did have was a
: series of instincts about how the Major
: Government and the international community
: had handled affairs in Bosnia, and he wasn't
: impressed. Ever the anti-fatalist, once in
: office he was inclined to see such problems
: as requiring a solution. And passing across
: his desk in autumn 1997 were a series of
: intelligence reports concerning the dictator
: of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and his weapons of
: mass destruction. ‘We cannot let him get
: away with it,’ he told Paddy Ashdown that
: November.”
: (Aaronovitch, ‘Tony Blair: The war? I
: believed in it, I believed in it then, I
: believe in it now,’ The Times, November 17,
: 2007;
:
: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/the_blair_years/article2886677.ece
: )
:
: Aaronovitch claimed he would never beleve
: Blair again, but here he claimed that
: "passing across his desk in autumn 1997
: were a series of intelligence reports
: concerning the dictator of Iraq, Saddam
: Hussein, and his weapons of mass
: destruction". As was obvious to just
: about everyone else in 2007, that wasn't
: true - there was nothing passing across
: Blair's desk to prompt his propaganda
: campaign, except perhaps orders from Bush.
:
: Carne Ross, a key Foreign Office diplomat
: responsible for monitoring UN arms
: inspections in Iraq, said in 2005 that
: British government claims about Iraq's
: weapons programme had been "totally
: implausible". Ross told the Guardian:
:
: "I'd read the intelligence on WMD for
: four and a half years, and there's no way
: that it could sustain the case that the
: government was presenting. All of my
: colleagues knew that, too." (Richard
: Norton-Taylor, 'WMD claims were
: "totally implausible",' The
: Guardian, June 20, 2005)
:
: John Morrison, a former deputy chief of
: defence intelligence, commented on Blair‘s
: warnings of “a current and serious threat to
: the UK”: "When I heard him using those
: words, I could almost hear the collective
: raspberry going up around Whitehall."
: (Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Official sacked
: over TV remarks on Iraq,' The Guardian, July
: 26, 2004)
:
: But Aaronovitch was happy to believe in
: 2007:
:
: “The nightmare was the confluence of WMD
: with terrorism... and Saddam's continued
: defiance of UN resolutions seemed to confirm
: intelligence reports of continuing WMD
: capacity.” That was Blair's invention -
: nothing to do with reality.
:
: We can expect much the same from Paxman as
: from Aaronovitch.
:
: Eds
:
:
- " It wasn't beyond Paxman, or other journalists, to investigate the credibility of the claims" --
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym
on November 2, 2009, 5:20 pm, in reply to "Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""But that implies the polite acceptance of the claim that Paxman et al. are credible journalists. I know it's impolite, but I think that 'sleb-hack' is a more accurate description.
In Jeremy's case the accurate phrase is 'complacent-goodthinker millionaire sleb-hack'.
John Pilger is a journalist. I think Bob Fisk qualifies too. Their scars, earned in dangerous encounters in risky places in the pursuit of news, identify them. The inflated bums, bellies and sense of self-importance of the desk-flying sleb-hacks identify *them*.
Why would any savvy dissident want to take such puffed-up place-holders seriously -- as sources of reliable fact, I mean? As threats to the world's vulnerable people and places, obviously, they're to be taken as seriously as the criminal power-wielding gics who own them, and whom they serve.
Paxman's civilised, reasonable form of words, as reported here, are just the bromide with which he and his ilk kid themselves, each other, and any of us who are mislead into taking them seriously at their own estimate. - Sleb-Hack - "Celebrity Hackney"! nm
Posted by OrwellianUK
on November 2, 2009, 6:15 pm, in reply to "" It wasn't beyond Paxman, or other journalists, to investigate the credibility of the claims" --"nm - Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked"
Posted by David Bracewell
on November 2, 2009, 6:00 pm, in reply to "Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""This is a delicious phrase:
"If [Powell] believes this to be the case; he's seen the evidence, I haven't."
It's hard to know what this means, since the evidence was a part of Powell's presentation.
It's also hard to know how this fits into a journalist's ambit: to treat Powell like a BBC researcher rather than a part of the story he should be checking out. - Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked"
Posted by Ed
on November 2, 2009, 7:24 pm, in reply to "Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked"""When I saw all of that, I said 'we know that Colin Powell is an intelligent thoughtful man, and a sceptical man."
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.
The trained killer Powell has a track record of deception... Vietnam anyone? - Re: Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked"
Posted by Keith-264
on November 2, 2009, 7:31 pm, in reply to "Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""No doubt Paxo was so upset when he realised he'd been had, that he resigned.
264, the last working class hero in England. - Russia, Germany and France were not hoodwinked
Posted by Peter Charles
on November 2, 2009, 8:31 pm, in reply to "Paxman on Iraq - "we were hoodwinked""
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cV6RCnA5WY - Re: Russia, Germany and France were not hoodwinked
Posted by Peter Charles
on November 2, 2009, 8:38 pm, in reply to "Russia, Germany and France were not hoodwinked"Russia: "Russia has no trustworth data to support claims that Iraq possesses either nuclear or any other wmd, nor have we received any convincing proof from our partners"
Germany: "You have to make the case and excuse me I'm not convinced" -- Joschka Fischer
France: "I repeat that every possibility offered by the present resolution must be explored, that there are a lot of them and they still leave us with a lot of leeway when it comes to ways of achieving the objective of eliminating any weapons of mass destruction which may exist in Iraq. I'd like nevertheless to note that, as things stand at the moment, I have, to my knowledge, no indisputable proof in this sphere."
— President Jacques Chirac, February 10, 2003
Paxo: "I was hoodwinked gov!"