And another thing…

I was about to compose a long reply as to why I think you’re wrong, but it’s easier to say that we’ll have to agree to strongly disagree on Mr Campbell.

You are quite right.

What Campbell said about the pressure of his vilification makes great sense.

Various ministers have been driven from office in the past few years, women most obviously.

Bullying is the new critique.

Andrew Marr referred to Alastair Campbell’s new novel as “his latest work of fiction.” This was before he was even on screen. He then interrupted constantly every time Campbell was answering.

It was evident that Marr believes that Blair lied, misled, pulled the wool over Parliament’s eyes and he didn’t want to hear anything else. He also quoted a highly questionable statistic related to the number of people who died in the Iraq war. Every death is a tragedy, but using unsafe facts on mainline, broadcast televisions in order to appear macho, or to score points is becoming more and more prevalent, as with Chris Grayling and crime statistics. Everything seems to be dumbing down to Daily Mail standards — never mind the truth, just plant the poison.

in 2003 many believed that the war was wrong and marched accordingly. Some believed that war was unfortunate, but justified by the evidence available at the time. The Tory party screamed for action to be taken against Saddam Hussein and virtually accused the Labour government of cowardice in failing to confront him. Governments around the globe were convinced that there were weapons in Iraq.

I have respect for those who opposed the war from the beginning, but I am nauseated by those who are now leaping onto the bandwagon of righteousness. That includes politicians of all shades, civil servants and diplomats. How many resigned at the time on principle? How many stayed on to claim their perks and pensions? How many are simply chasing political advantage.

Maybe the interviewers on the BBC, ITV and Sky have some sort of macho scoring chart. How many points for showing the human side of Alastair Campbell? More important, maybe, how can they influence the outcome of the election and be proved to be really, really important?

Andrew Marr lost my respect today. Alastair Campbell didn’t.

Brown, Campbell & Pauline Prescott all doing “human interest” stuff on the same weekend – who’d a thunk it eh?

I dearly, dearly hope it’s a coincidence, because it’s a new “low” if it isn’t.

I suppose we will never know for sure.

To paraphrase Bob Monkhouse on the subject of sincerity: “If you can fake that, you can fake anything”

Shows how far apart we are. I see Campbell as a represtnative of all that is wrong with British politics. If he is in a bad way,( and I do say if). Then he has only himself to blame. If Labour just for a moement put country before party, things would not be like they are, Cambell has never put country before party, and will have to live with it.It all sparks of desperation to me.

The real villian of the Iraq war is Saddam Hussein.

If you want western politicians to blame, then try John Major and George Bush 1st.

They could have got rid of Saddam ten years earlier, but stopped short for reasons unknown…

….maybe fear of WMD?

It’s interesting how the lines now drawn are those who were “in favour” of the war and those who opposed it. But of course nobody (sane) is ever “in favour” of war.

War is the failure of politics, and the politics failed in Iraq many years before 2003.

As for Campbell on the Andrew Marr show: I think he was struggling with the impulse to walk out, and calculating the damage it would do to the Labour election campaign.

Marr certainly seems to feel he has to be harder on Labour politicians than Tories… witness his attacks on GB over his rumoured health problems.

You never see him knife Tories in that way.

Wonder why?

Hmmm….David Kelly?

My interpretation was different to yours Tom. Andrew Marr asked him a perfectly sensible question to which he could not answer. And he never did answer the question.

That’s the problem: he complains about being asked the same questions a thousand times…but each and every time he deflects it by going on about being persecuted/TB having integrity/how it personally affects him… And each and every time the question is never properly answered. He said people were not interested in the truth any more…when it’s all that we are interested in.

When reality and truth escapes them, politicians, spin doctors and the like all resort to that last desperate throw of the dice: personal emoting. It’s not going to work this time.

I agree, Tom (and also with QZ and Rapunzel, who has some very astute insights). When I saw on the news the way Campbell had nearly broken down when faced with Marr’s distortions, I thought maybe people will start to question their assumptions about him.

As if.

I was about to compose a long reply as to why I think you’re wrong, but it’s easier to say that we’ll have to agree to strongly disagree on Mr Campbell.

Pam, there isn’t anything you can say about Campbell that doesn’t rely on your assumptions about him – which are based on the hollow and grotesque caricature he’s portrayed as by the media. Why not try questioning that, instead of following the herd in thinking he’s some kind of bogeyman? He’s hated because he’s a man of principle who actually stands up and speaks his truth, whereas the media as a whole are the ones with an agenda, who twist things and have scores to settle. I think anyone would eventually buckle under the strain that he’s been put under, constantly being accused of being a liar, when (if you read his diaries of the time), it’s clear that he and Blair were acting with integrity – whether you agree with the conclusions they came to or not.

Agree totally with Alex too.

Tom, your defence of Alastair Campbell would have been just as relevant to Damian Mcbride, (even though Damian got caught lying).

@Repunzal. “Andrew Marr referred to Alastair Campbell’s new novel as “his latest work of fiction.””

Alastair Campbell has been a fairly prolific author of fiction right back to his days writing for Forum Magazine. It would take a fairly thin skin to believe Marr was actually referring to the Iraq dossier, (despite Campbells admission that he requested at least 15 changes to beef up the intelligence).

BTW, what a crass pillock Andrew Marr is. It puzzles me because I’ve got the histories of modern Britain (written by him) which are very good, and show that he’s basically an intelligent bloke who knows his subject.

But as an interviewer he’s rubbish. He’s like an eight year old with ADHD who’s OD’d on E-numbers and can’t for the life of him stop fidgeting or concentrate, wants an argument and keeps blurting out the first thing that comes into his head. He really needs to sort himself out, although it appears that that sort of interviewing is the approved sort at the BBC these days.

Alex: Whatever the real reasons why the first Iraq war “turkey shoot” as the undisciplined american forces called it didn’t drive on to Bagdad it was said that regime change was not our objective.

Then the kurds, marsh arabs and others were mass murdered by Saddam as he restored his control.

You’re quite right, it is a scandal that Major & Bush Snr left them to their fates. And how pathetic does Major now sound when he criticises Blair and HMG for finishing off what he cravenly ignored earlier.

It doesn’t strike me as in keeping with Alistair Campbell’s character to use tears in order to manipulate public opinion (about which I don’t think he would give a stuff, anyway). He’s admitted to suffering from depression and it’s just as likely that Marr caught him at a bad time.

@Johnny Norfolk

” I see Campbell as a represtnative of all that is wrong with British politics.”

ALL THAT’S WRONG…?

Now if that’s not demonising, what is?

It’s not as if there’s a shortage of candidates…

What about Lord Ashcroft? Is he all that is good about British politics?

Or Nick Griffith?

Or the Daily Mail?

Or the Sun?

Campbell is a loyalist and a fighter. I bet the Tories wish they had someone as effective and committed….

I personally don’t really care for the “In the thick of it” analogy. After all it is a fictional comedy, that appears in an entertainment slot on al jebeeba. Otherwise are we saying that the other comic effects perfectly reflect this dysfunctional government?

What the whole episode throws up is that a vast amount of the media question Campbell’s integrity through working with him in the past, and actually believe that it is possible for him to deflect criticism through this kind of a charade

It is that “trust” which has been broken, and I fear it will not be Bad Al Campbell who brings British politics back from this abyss. Nor I fear will your defence of him

What Chilcot evidence seems to show is that if there was a decision to go to war, Tony Blair took it well before the war and then drove the process, assisted by Campbell and others.

Prior to the Iraq Invasion, Blair was not sitting there like Solomon dispensing wisdom, he was in there making it happen.

I don’t have an agenda, that’s what the evidence seems to show – including Campbell’s and Blair’s themselves. And that’s why very many people are so angry, particularly those who were persuaded to vote for the war.
(Hat-tip Leo)

Alex

What you fail to see is the The Daily Mail tells the truth and Campbel does not.

You hate Ashcroft becaise he can beat you every time.

Nick Griffen has been elected by PR as introduced by Labour for the Euro Elections so its Labours fault he is in power.

I have no idea about the Sun only it is the tory version of The Mirror only more popular.

Campbell has manipulated the truth so much he does not now know himself, what or who he is. He must find it difficult to accept just what he has done. Thats why he was upset ( if he was)

The Daily Mail tells the truth

Yes, it’s the Gospel according to St Paul of Dacre.

You hate Ashcroft becaise he can beat you every time.

Of course, that poster campaign was a storming success. Didn’t make Dave look like a prize twerp at all.

Campbell has manipulated the truth so much he does not now know himself, what or who he is.

Hmmm. If you read his diaries (unlikely though that is) you’ll see for yourself that that isn’t what he does. He’s just fighting his corner.

Johnny Norfolk @ 11:15 am

“What you fail to see is the The Daily Mail tells the truth and Campbel does not.”

Johnny, you believe what you want. I’ll go with Lord Northcliff who founded the Mail (so he should know) and gave as his vision statement:

“I shall give the people of England their daily dose of fear”, the aim being to keep them fearful and conservative (small c and large C).

“You hate Ashcroft”

I don’t hate anyone, let alone Ashcroft: I’ve never met the man. It just seems to me regrettable that foreign based millionaires can have such an effect on UK politics and the Tories sleaze along with him.

One may judge the supporters of the Dully Maul and Alastair Campbell, and their truthfulness or otherwise, by the successful libel actions the former has suffered.

Go onto I player and watch the interview again as I have just done. I found Campbell sickening he shows NO remorse for the loss of life. He appeared to be upset just to give him thinking time to answer the question. He will not accept that there was no evidence of WMD. Its this we are right and everone else is wrong attitude that is so sickening to watch. They behave just like dictators not democrats and in my opinion have totaly abused the power entrusted to them.

Of course he acted honestly. Of course 30 year old chemical stock piles one may or may not have were the reason for invading.
Of course the proof of threat was ‘beyond doubt’.

They just couldn’t play it with a straight bat.

@Alex ” It just seems to me regrettable that foreign based millionaires can have such an effect on UK politics and the Tories sleaze along with him.”

The Tories are not alone when it comes to sleaze. Ecclestone and Mittel spring to mind as 2 of Labour’s sleaziest relationships.

Johnny: Saddam had used WMDs, he retained the scientists to resume his programmes, and admitted that he would have done so had we left him in “peace.”

And no-one has yet suggested that his security around such programmes would have managed to exclude terrorists with their purposes.

Have you noticed that, as Tony Blair has pointed out, islamo-fascist (my word) atrocities pre-date the Second Iraq war?

I despair that so many “useful idiots,” as the right are wont to suggest, think that such as Saddam, Gaddafi, Noth Korea’s Kim Il-sung or any of the various Iranian factions and individuals should be let be with their WMD plans &, if we don’t stop them one way or another, toys.

SANJEEV GANDHI >> And he never did answer the question.

Why should he have? It’s be answered in a thousand different ways since the war ended.

>> That’s the problem: he complains about being asked the same questions a thousand times…

When did you last beat your wife?

When did you last beat your wife?

When did you last beat your wife?

When did you last beat your wife?

[...]

When did you last beat your wife?

Stop complaining!

>> but each and every time he deflects it by going on about being persecuted/TB having integrity/how it personally affects him…

No he doesn’t.

JOHNNY NORFOLK >> Go onto I player and watch the interview again as I have just done. I found Campbell sickening he shows NO remorse for the loss of life.

Twenty six thousand people die a day, and how many of the non-Iraqis d’you obsess about? You monster!

SIMON >> Tom, your defence of Alastair Campbell would have been just as relevant to Damian Mcbride, (even though Damian got caught lying).

Where has Campbell lied?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… maybe the next enquiry should be put in the hands of non-entities who come to a lively blog to harangue the owner, and broadcast their views.

Rapunzel – what a well argued comment. I agree wholeheartedly with it. Enough said…..

Quietzapple

You are just the same, send in our troops so long as its not me. Look at the loss of life and you defend this act of destruction, so detatched, so political, so labour.

I notice you have not published my comment.

I am afraid this is where we part company, and I mean that, since it is no longer possible to post measured and considered comments merely because you disagree with the content and nothing else, I shall no longer be visiting this blog or contributing to it.

I also ask that you remove my banner from your blog as I do not wish to be associated with it in any way.

Isn’t is a little odd that all I did was to quote Campbell himself, one long serving Labour MP, Campbell’s former assistant, AC himself, the wife of the ex Prime Minister and a former Tory Cabinet Minister, whose comments are a matter of public record, in reply to what amounts to a gushing piece by you, entitled “In Praise of Alastair Campbell”

My entire piece was researched and accurate and was in no way libelous or abusive.

And so it has come down you you having a good news blog about Labour with no real intention of accepting other points of view, especially if they are as coruscating as mine.

I can only thank you that this has helped me make the decision to resume blogging forthwith.

I thought Campbell was obviously sincere and justifiably upset. The Coffee House takes down Marr’s outrageous claim that it is an established fact that 600,000 died as a result of the 2003 invasion.

I thought Marr’s cheap shots and phoney anger were just nauseating – “Youre a proven liar with the blood of thousands on your hands” was his line. A hallmark of Daily Mail journalism is the facile dramatisation of other peoples moral outrage.

The problem for Campbell and Blair (whom I also think history will vindicate) is that they will never be believed by that very large group of people (a majority probably) who passionately opposed the war, were not listened to, and saw the whole unfolding nightmare as an absolute vindication of their original position, adn a complete betrayal of the new politics of 1997.

What is quite clear is that ever since Hutton the BBC has openly pursued a vendetta against all those who humiliated the news side of the operation and exposed its institutional arrogance.

The default position of all its reporting on the subject is that the war was: (a) illegal; (b) a catastrophe for the people of Iraq; and (c) prosecuted dishonestly by Blairs coterie for base reasons (megalomania, sycophancy, a fondness for uniforms). No alternative view is tolerated.

I also think Marr’s interview with Hague was rubbish and he wiped the floor with him.

I don’t think all thios breaking down and crying business is going to work.

It might work if you’re Peter Andre, but it won’t work if you were one of the architects of the Iraq war, or indeed the Prime Minister.

That might sound harsh but it’s true.

People are disgusted by it.

“He genuinely believes that he and Blair acted honestly, courageously, honourably and in good faith.”

Yes, I am sure he has convinced himself of this, but that does not mean it is true.

Courageously? Yes, I can accept that. Honourably? Well that depends on your values. By their own lights I can believe they thought they were being honourable. In good faith? Well I am sure that they thought, however erroneously, that what they were doing was best for Britain and the world, so there is a case for that too.

But “honestly”. No, sorry, that is not credible. They clearly and consciously overstated the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in order to persuade parliament, the public and key elements of the Labour Party of the case for war. Similarly, they suppressed information about the possible illegality of that war, for the same reasons.

What Alastair Canpbell’s uncharacteristic moment of silence was intended to convey was ” how dare you ask me a difficult question for which I have no convincing answer when I came here primarily to plug my unsuccessfully pornographic book”. It contained an implicit attempt to intimidate.

The bottom line, for all of us, is that he preferred to deflect the question, rather than to answer it.

@Alex “Where has Campbell lied?”

I didn’t say Campbell lied, I said McBride lied.

Tom’s defence of Campbell, based on his devotion and loyalty to the Prime Minister, could equally have been used to defend Damian McBride.

It’s my personal opinion that politics and politicians would be better respected without the likes of Campbell and McBride lurking in the background.

I’m sorry, I’m lost, Simon. Did Tom defend McBride? If not, this has sweet Felicity Adamson to do with Campbell.

>> People are disgusted by it.

Speak for yourself. More projection, I see.

Weasel: Tom fails to publish a lot more of mine than yours I bet. I too have felt misrepresented, even unjustly attacked without having appropriate means of response.

Sometimes it is best to post a comment not accepted in parts, and hope most of it appears:

Johnny Norfolk’s accusation is beneath even his usual level of folly and misjudgement.

What lies did Damian MacBride tell? He emailed some silly accusations, at least one of which had already been published and which were not the subject of a libel action, despite the wealth of the senior tory Osborne who was the object of that accusation in a News of the World article a couple of years previously.

It is notorious that the News of the World phone hacking, now admitted to be much wider in scope than was former;y the case, are not the object of any further investigation or prosecution so far as we know.

The N o W Editor of the time, Coulson, recommended to Chameleon by Osborne, claimed innocence when questioned by the Select Committee; many did not believe him.

Some silly emails are not in that class in my view.

It really doesn’t matter if those who supported the war acted acted honestly, courageously, honourably and in good faith. Those who opposed the war also acted honestly, courageously, honourably and in good faith.

@Alec “I’m sorry, I’m lost, Simon. Did Tom defend McBride? If not, this has sweet Felicity Adamson to do with Campbell.”

I think you may be being deliberately obtuse here. If you re-read my post slowly you will see I have not said anything too complicated.

@Quietzapple “What lies did Damian MacBride tell? He emailed some silly accusations…”

I don’t think anyone in the cold light of day should defend the lies that McBride and Draper came up with. If the shoe was on the other foot you would certainly hear no defence from me.

@Wrinkled Weasel

I’ve occasionally defended Tom’s absolute right to edit his own site, but don’t for one moment think he simply removes views with which he doesn’t agree. (We’re obviously not talking about vulgarity, diversion or libel here.)

I hope I’m not wrong. That would undermine the whole basis of debate on one of the few adult, intelligent, left- leaning sites.

>> Tom, your defence of Alastair Campbell would have been just as relevant to Damian Mcbride, (even though Damian got caught lying).

Did Tom defend McBride? If not, this is as relevant as bringing in Ali Dizaei (who, unlike Erwin Burrell, got caught lying).

Wrinked Weasel said: ‘And so it has come down you you having a good news blog about Labour with no real intention of accepting other points of view, especially if they are as coruscating as mine.’

I agree, entirely. The affable welcome- all-comers blogger has gone – now as the night draws in even as the nights draw out, this blog gets tribal. Nicky, Alex, and friends, it’s all yours. Feel free to express your support for Mr Brown and Mr Campbell in your own inimitable way. You won’t get no trouble from me.

As for Rapunzel – I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee…

I enjoyed reading your defence of Andrew Campbell and how the media and certain members of the British Public are villifying him.

I’m curious Tom, have you listen to the transcripts or read the ‘declassified’ evidence?

How many laywers does it take to declare an action illegal? A whole lot more than to declare it legal I think!

Campbells interview was nothing more than a performance, probably a very well rehearsed performance. Those who think otherwise should maybe view his attack on Gilligan.

For those who dream that we are hearing and obtaining the truth about the lead up to the war, READ the evidence, ponder what the government is actually withholding.

Look at the governments attempt (Milliband) to classify the recent released documents pertaining to the torture of a British citizen in Guantanamo…

The pro war or accepters of the war want to believe the Government acted in the best interests of the UK, I have no problem with that, I also have no problem with how they explain their decisions made on going to war.

My real problem lies with not being given the full facts and only getting a portion of the truth now!

How many politicians would have supported the war knowing how many legal advisors belived the war was illegal?

I hope the Chilcot inquiry manages to release all the documents, from their you can make up your own minds. But from what has been released to date the weight of the evidence suggests that:
a) The war was in contrevention of International Law.
b) The process in which Government made decisions were fundementally flawed.

I do hope that eveidence is produced that justifies the decision made, but until that time we should never let this go!

Lest we forget!