Iraq Inquiry Digest

Comment from BlairSupporter
Time December 8, 2009 at 2:12 am

Mr Mason,

You say:
‘Anything but official affirmation from the inquiry that a mendacious prime minister tricked the nation into an illegal invasion at the bidding of his war-crazed chum George W. Bush will be judged, alongside earlier independent reports into the war, as an Establishment “whitewash”.’

Is your tak eon this meant to be serious? The FT report by Stephens is sarcasm. Ar you people really unable to understand this? Or are you conniving to twist others’ words and yet others’ thoughts by any chance? As if.

To read more of what he had to say your readers have to make sure they visit his article. It is clear that he is NOT as convinced as this puerile tactic would like to suggest. He is, though, disappointed that ‘death’ by a thousand paper/blogger cuts has been dealt to ANYONE in this way.

I too have used a snippet from his article at a post I have just completed, flatteringly called ‘Part 1 – The Iraq Inquiry Digest’.

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/part-1-the-iraq-inquiry-digest-edited-by-chris-ames/

Why ‘flatteringly’? Because – keep this ‘economical with the truth nonsense’ up and there may not be too many parts to come!

Some of us may be persuaded that if there’s one place one does NOT wish to visit for the TROOOF, it’s this site.

Pingback from Part 2 – The “Iraq Inquiry Digest”. Brian Jones contribution on WMDs « Tony Blair
Time December 8, 2009 at 2:39 am

[...] see this twisting of Mr Stephens’ meaning at The Iraq Inquiry Digest. A ‘moving the goalpost’ moment if ever I saw [...]

Comment from andrewsimon
Time December 8, 2009 at 10:57 am

BlairSupporter -

I’m sorry our (my) reporting isn’t to your liking. I didn’t ’say’ these words which you quote, they are clearly part of the original piece, I simply suggested that this article offered something of a downbeat opinion, which is a view I mainly stand by as an generally observable point from anyone’s particular perspective.

Had I entitled the post here along the lines of “The FT condemns the Inquiry as a whitewash” or “FT – whitewash confirmed” then I think you could justifiably accuse me of twisting words. I didn’t. The title was written deliberately so as not to contextualise the content about which it was composed, and a link was supplied so that it can be read and digested exactly as intended, which is precisely what you’ve done.

Was there anything else I wrote here which was truly “economical with the truth” or even indeed “nonsense”?

Comment from Stan Rosenthal
Time December 8, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Come off it, Andrew. Your carefully selected snippet was obviously designed to link in with the Digest’s negative coverage of the Inquiry.

Had this not been your aim you could have easily added the article’s next paragraph to your extract which would have clearly shown the irony of the opening words that Blairsupporter has referred to. Here it is for those who cannot bother to click on to the whole piece.

“The mood has been summed up by the reaction to the inquiry’s opening sessions. Anything that seemed to make the case against Mr Blair grabbed a headline. Everything else was ignored. The tone was captured by the commentator who observed scornfully that Sir John seemed set on writing a report that was “detailed, nuanced and balanced”.

The writer is saying exactly what I have been saying about how the inquiry is being reported (or rather misreported). Your distortion of what he said provides yet another example of how this is being done.

Shame on you.

Comment from BlairSupporter
Time December 8, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Since, Andrew, you were particularly selective with your clip, as Stan has pointed out it’s actually intriguing that both your paragraphs confirm (by limiting context), what you really meant readers to get. Imho.

Otherwise why make it read as though the original writer had meant to state as his opinion that Blair was “a mendacious prime minister”?

He actually said a LOT more than this choice excerpt of yours:

‘Anything but official affirmation from the inquiry that a mendacious prime minister tricked the nation into an illegal invasion at the bidding of his war-crazed chum George W. Bush will be judged, alongside earlier independent reports into the war, as an Establishment “whitewash”.’

So the approach was meant to be a double whammy.

Only it wasn’t.

You portrayed it as backing up your position.
Only it didn’t.

I am not saying that we shouldn’t use snips of evidence, information & articles that go against our prevailing opinion. We all do it at times. It’s human nature. But I really do think that this is MORE than that. It is, it seems to me, as Stan suggests, “a distortion of the facts”.

Any innocent reader falling on this page will only read that snip and assume the rest of it is in the same accusatory vein against Blair.

Which it isn’t.

Why don’t you contact the writer, Philip Stephens at the FT, and see what he REALLY meant?

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/part-2-the-iraq-inquiry-digest-brian-jones-contribution-on-wmds/

Comment from Philip Stephens
Time December 12, 2009 at 9:03 am

For the sake of clarity, my column in the FT was making the following points:

1. The mainstream media has made up its mind on Tony Blair and the Iraq war and will not be shaken from its view by either the evidence presented to the inquiry or the inquiry’s conclusions. The prevailing opinion is, as I put it, that Blair was a mendacious prime minister who tricked the nation into an illegal war at the bidding of George W Bush.

That was a description of others’ view not of my own. Those holding this view will regard anything but its endorsement by Chilcott et al as a “whitewash”. I do not hold that position.

2. Much to the discomfort of the Blair-is-a-war criminal tendency much of the evidence offered so far undercuts that case: i.e. the central allegations he did not really believe that Saddam had WMD or that he saw the UN process as nothing more than a useful feint have been contradicted by several witnesses.

3. My own view has been that Blair can be accused of bending the evidence to his basic conviction that Saddam was a threat, but let’s wait to see what the inquiry has still to throw up.

4 This media obsession with Blair’s “guilt” sadly is likely to obscure some of the bigger strategic issues, including the nature of the UK-US relationship.

Philip Stephens

Comment from andrewsimon
Time December 12, 2009 at 11:49 am

Philip -

Thank you for your clarification here. In posting the introduction to your piece I was not attempting to ascribe to you any particular viewpoint or bias, I was merely noting your good work and linking to it for the benefit of others so that they could read it in full. Because I did not reproduce more of your article (which then in my view may have constituted slightly more than reasonable ‘fair use’) I may have given the impression to some that I was point scoring for the anti-side of the debate. I assure you that this was not my intention.