Iraq’s Over. Right. Now – shall we hang Blair or burn him at the stake?

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

Number 10 Petition - ’Please go, Gordon’ – Sign here

Comment at end

1st May, 2009

WHY NOT BOTH? HANG HIM AND BURN HIM!

(That might satisfy some at the Beeb)

Now that the UK’s six-year stint in Iraq has come to a close, expect the usual suspects out in force. They’ll mostly give it until tomorrow – out of respect for the troops, you understand.

With the obligatory “no-one is above the law … if they break it … and they have … they must pay the price” we will have regurgitation after indigestible puke as to just WHY we westerners, especially we Brits, must “do the right thing” and put our leaders on trial. (Especially him, of course – for whom they already have a specially designated place - hotter than the usual hell-holes this crowd of hangers and floggers seem to inhabit.)

Already some at the BBC are at it. Oliver Kamm refers to this here when he says of the BBC’s Hugh Sykes on Nicky Campbell’s Radio 5 programme: 

Kamm:  “I was moderately surprised to hear another interviewee, the longstanding BBC correspondent Hugh Sykes, say grudgingly that we have to believe that British politicians, in deciding on military intervention, were well-intentioned and did what they believed was right. (I haven’t listened to the recording – the whole programme is here - but the tone and the insinuation were clear to me and I suspect will be to you.)

Well yes, we do have to believe that, because Sykes neither cited nor possesses any evidence to the contrary. I invariably defend, without necessarily always admiring, the BBC’s foreign journalism, which usually manages to be informed and objective. But I thought this was an extraordinary remark for Sykes to have made. His role at the BBC is to report the news. It is not – as mine is at The Times – to express opinions on policy and politics.”

In my opinion most of the BBC has been deeply biased against the Iraq war and Tony Blair’s motivation for going there in the first place.  His integrity, in other words, has endlessly and mercilessly been pilloried by most of the news departments of the BBC. Current affairs programmes, particularly on Radio 4, have often taken a somewhat different position. Their starting point is less ‘knowledgeable’ and ‘judgemental’ and as a result far better researched. 

This Telegraph article, by Damien McElroy has the ”judgement” to open with this:

“As it was confirmed that the government would hold an inquiry into the circumstances leading up to the war under Tony Blair’s leadership, the flag was lowered on the last British combat operation in Basra after commanders handed over to an American brigade with a handshake. “

Since all writers know the importance of the first sentence, Mr McElroy has made clear his priorities.

---

REPORT FROM OUR ‘WAR OPINION’ ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ

With all the hand-wringing and the they needn’t/shouldn’t have died that goes on amongst the naysayers, I’d like to say this:

Soldiers are adults. They know that they can die in combat whether they agree with the combat or not. Theirs is TO DO OR DIE. See Charge of the Light Brigade. This is not quaint other era stuff. It is how it is and always has been in the forces.

Journalists, on the other hand, especially war reporters, are supposed to be adult too. They are not described by the News at Ten newscaster as “our War Opinion on the ground”. They are meant to report, not opine. REPORT, not to pass judgement on political decisions in a semi-ignorant haze of worthy bias.

---

Listen to Radio 5 Live /breakfast here – It’s an hour long programme starting with the Memorial Service today in Basra. It begins with a roll-call of the names of the 179 dead in Iraq and the non-British troops who worked alongside the British troops in Basra.

The interviewer, Nicky Campbell then speaks to the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq.  She says that although she is proud of her son she does not think the war was worthwhile.

At 25 minutes in, Oliver Kamm is interviewed. He explains why he thinks it was right that we did the intervention at a time of our choosing rather than let the problem fester.

Then Hugh Sykes is asked “What changes have you seen for the better?” he replies, “Democracy … but Basra is worse than when I first came here six years ago.  Yes, there is freedom, we do have security, but with escorts.”

Sykes, scaremongering says - “Baathists still lurking …”

At 29 minutes in John Hutton, Secretary of State for Defence speaks.

Asked “Was this really worth it? Did you have any doubts? “, Hutton says, “Yes, and most people did, at the time, have doubts.”

Also, “Were you upholding the authority of the UN by invading?”

“Yes”, says Hutton, “that is my view … we tried very hard to get a second resolution … but we believe we had authority … today for me personally this is an opportunity to pay respect to our armed forces.”

Then Hugh Sykes again (at around 37m). THIS would be the part which Kamm saw rightly as biased.  It is deeply so, from start to finish.

First of all Mr Sykes seems to attempt to cast aspersions on the useless nature of war in Iraq by referring to a war memorial for British and British Empire soldiers who fell in the Iraq campaign of 1914 to1921 – “thousands and thousands of names … I estimate rough count 8,000 names here who fell in that campaign.”

Then this – “And of course as the ex-para pointed out in one of the texts that you read out just now to John Hutton 3,500 Iraqi civilians have died since the British came to the south of Iraq in 2003 and again as a rough estimate I think it would take 10 hours to read out all their names.”

Campbell asks: “It’s a difficult morning for politicians, isn’t it?”

Sykes: “Yes, absolutely because we have to believe, I think, that they are … they’re well intentioned, that they did what they believed was right at the time.  Although I do remember wondering when I heard Tony Blair many years ago before the Iraq war saying something along the lines of … but definitely using the word “capricious” … that he didn’t want to have to fall in line with the capricious resolutions at the United Nations.  That made a lot of people angry because they thought that that was very unilateral, very arrogant that Britain just decided to do what it and America wanted to do.  There are many people in Basra saying the British have done nothing here, all they’ve done is waste their own resources, their own treasury, their own time and 179 of their own lives.  Now we have parents - a mother expressing very similar sentiments.  She wondered what she would feel if she came here to Iraq and saw the changes I think was the expression that she used.  Well, I could show her round  … I’ll show anybody round  … and I do believe that anybody of honest temperament would look around them and be appalled at the state of the city of Basra . The only place where it is even remotely picking up is on the Corniche along the Shat al-Arab Waterway. Everywhere else it is a broken place and people here wonder why after six years of the occupation why didn’t the occupiers fulfil the duty of the occupier and make some real noticeable improvements.

“HONEST” – “HONEST” Mr Sykes!?

So, if other people do not make the same judgement as you, Mr Sykes, are they not HONEST? If they think more time is needed to bring all of Basra to civilised living are they WRONG and DISHONEST and worse – guilty of not blaming Blair for the whole business?  If they come to Iraq and are NOT persuaded by your biased tales of woe, are they NOT worthy? If they argue that insurgents are at least equally responsible for many of the deaths, if not most in Iraq are they imagining the suicide bombers?

Mr Sykes clearly recalled Blair’s “capricious” comment but not his  “Doctrine of the International Community”, 1999. Nor his recent “International Doctrine Part 2″ speech, which is entirely consistent with Chicago 1999.

And yet this “doctrine” was much more noteworthy in explaining Blair’s stance on international responsibility than any remark on ignoring “capricious” or “unreasonable” Security Council vetoes, as he alluded to in parliament in March 2003.  The Blair doctrine of 1999 was also ahead of its time and as politically responsible in outlook today as it was then.  Anathema it will always be of course to so-called ”internationalist” socialists.  With proud words should come, when required, action.

The alternative is and always has been isolationist hands-off-ism.

It should also be remembered that Blair tried repeatedly to press for a Second Resolution at the UN on Iraq, though this was NOT required. NOT required, since the UN had been led down the garden path over earlier resolutions to Saddam for 12 years.  THEY, the UN had let the world down.  “Capricious” is not the only descriptive word that should have been and could be still directed at the UN.

NOT REQUIRED = NO TRIAL OF DEFENDERS OF FREEDOM

It is NOT Mr Sykes’ place in this world to try to persuade people that Blair, his government, America, the international coalition and the armed forces were all in the wrong, by selectively showing them what reasonable, HONEST people would expect IN A WAR-TORN LAND. Honest, reasonable people would expect an unfinished job given the timescale.

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THE RADIO PROGRAMME

A caller to Nicky Campbell, Chris, a serving soldier said, “Today, just today please … can we just take today to say “thank you” and recognise that they did do some good.  We are not war-craving neanderthals. Let’s just take a break from the politicking and say thank you to them and to their families.”

The following two callers – again, more who know it all, a la Sykes mode.  One says that “”A Labour government committing us to be in Iraq in the first place … this was a war built on lies”.  And another caller said that ”Tony Blair wanted glory”.

WHAT INDEPENDENT/GUARDIAN/DAILY MAIL poppycock!

The first caller, Chris the soldier, returned to say that after therapy he now realised that suicide bombers caused the deaths of Iraqis, for which he originally blamed himself. (Oh, yes. Forgot about THEM, didn’t we, Mr Sykes?) “I feel that pain every day”, the soldier continued.

And this from AN Other “What George & Tony wanted was a large pile of dead bodies so that they could look like world statesmen…”

WHAT A DISGRACEFUL ACCUSATION – WHAT AN IDIOT!

And to Chris, with all the “knowledge” of an imbecile (sorry I do NOT have Mr Blair’s patience with such as these) -”The orders you were given were criminal and the International Criminal Court doesn’t apply to Americans …”

The point? That only Blair should be tried, since Bush can’t be? Or that our soldiers too should be in court?

A supporter of the Iraq invasion who lost his friend in Basra says that there were many issues  … ”I support the invasion and the intervention. The strategy was a mess … the difference between different sectarian groups and us not reconciling them has led to so much hardship and horror.”

And then another caller starts by saying that today is about the soldiers – then he launches into an attack on the political decision!

Oh my, oh my, oh my.

They just CAN’T let go, can they? 

---

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE

What’s the origin of the phrase “It is not ours to wonder why, it is only ours to do… and die” and who’s quote is it?

: : : Forward, the Light Brigade!’
: : : Was there a man dismay’d?
: : : Not tho’ the soldier knew
: : : Some one had blunder’d:
: : : Their’s not to make reply,
: : : Their’s not to reason why,
: : : Their’s but to do and die:
: : : Into the valley of Death
: : : Rode the six hundred.

: : : Second stanza of The Charge of the Light Brigade, by Alfred Lord Tennyson, about an awkward incident in the Crimean War. SS

: : One tiny change:

: : Theirs not to reason why,
: : Theirs but to do and die:

: Careless, careless, Smokey. I copied the text from a Googled source without checking it, an invitation to error. My bad. SS

Actually the Google source was correct: “their’s” is exactly what Tennyson wrote. The rules for use of the apostrophe have changed since the 1850s! (VSD)

---

ETCETERA

Only a tiny fraction of the victims of Saddam's terror reign. And "tiny" victims. For stopping that carnage alone western leaders deserve grateful praise not constant lambasting. It was ever thus from the myopic - to fail to see the wood for the trees. Hugh Sykes et al should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

 

• “Thank you”, says Canon Andrew White, who worked and preached in Iraq: “Our troops living and departed are doing, and have done, a wonderful job. They will not be forgotten. From the bottom of my heart I thank them along with the majority of the Iraqi people.” 
• 57 pages of Saddam’s atrocities: Victims’ Mass Graves
• Ann Coulter on torture AmURICan-style: SHOCKING stuff if you are a touch quesy about crucifying former prime ministers.
• Number 10 Petition – ‘Please go, Gordon’ (now at 37,206 signatories, and TOP of the Number 10 charts.)

VERDICTS ON THE WAR (premature, imho, but there you go!)

• Scotsman: “Has it really all been worth it?” – Yes & No.
• Telegraph Talking Heads – Yes & No.

PRESCIENT THOUGHTS ON BBC BIAS (FROM JULY 2003)

• NRO article: Notes from the previous war - OR – the inability to admit that they (the BBC) got it ALL wrong.

By Denis Boyles –

‘A great deal of the current criticism of the British Broadcasting Corporation is based on the BBC’s appalling, biased coverage of the war in Iraq. As the war began and the Coalition invasion proceeded across the desert toward Baghdad, I sat watching French TV and listening to the BBC’s World Service. That’s as close to a state of suspended disbelief as a man can get. As the capital finally fell to the Americans, I made a few notes. Here they are.”I was wrong.”

Of all the words in all the paragraphs in all the stories ever written by journalists anywhere, the simple inability to utter those three syllables is what distinguishes, say, a Howell Raines from, say, a Michael Kelly.At the end of the day on April 5, 2003, it was also what finally distinguished the BBC World Service’s coverage of the war in Iraq from what was going on in the real world.’

This National Review Online article is so accurate that I intend to use it on its own page. The brainwashed need a lesson in understanding the source of their confusion.

The Iraq war was a victory for Bush & for Blair & for the Iraqi people.

Remember that in years to come when people sing the praises of those who stepped up to the mark when called upon.

---

 

---

Tags: BBC bias against Iraq Blair, British troops to leave Iraq, hang burn Blair, Hugh Sykes, Iraq war ends, Nicky Campbell, Oliver Kamm, the beeb, Tony Blair, troops leave Iraq