David Aaronovitch: expert on lies

Accountability depends on long memories. Alistair Campbell's performance over the Iraq war was transparently mendacious to rather a lot of us, but it's apparently only now, at a comfortable temporal distance, after he has 'moved on' and nothing is likely to be done about it, that his lies on behalf of the Blair government are being nailed down.

Major-General Michael Laurie, a former intelligence official involved in the dossier that's not already known as 'dodgy' and which was defended so passionately by 'tears on tap' Campbell has recently given evidence to the Chilcot inquiry:

In written evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Maj-Gen Laurie rejected Mr Campbell's claim that the dossier was not intended to make the case for war: "This was exactly its purpose and these very words were used."

Among former and current members of the BBC news department, the comments were received yesterday with mixed feelings that combined a sense of vindication with anger at the way the organisation's journalism has been treated. Mr Marsh said he was unhappy with the implications by Lord Hutton in his 2004 report that the staff on Today had shown a lack of professionalism. "This vindicates our position and shows Hutton was wrong in criticising Andrew, criticising me and criticising the Today team," he said. "Just flat wrong." Rod Liddle, a former Today editor who hired Mr Gilligan, said: "These comments tell us what we knew already – that the BBC told the truth, Gilligan told the truth and Alastair Campbell's outrage was confected and it was a lie."

While we're revisiting old lies, it's worth having a quick shufti at what David Aaronovitch had to say about the dossier and the wider case (such as it was) for war. After all, Aaronovitch certainly seems to consider himself an authority on who is or isn't lying, as the ex cathedra pronouncements throughout his voodoo theories book bear witness.

So his expert opinion on this little matter? We weren't lied to.

That's bollocks of course, but perhaps Aaronovitch suffered from the same problem that, if he is to be believed, afflicted the Blair government: The government didn't deceive anybody over Iraq and WMD, but was misled itself. I couldn't possibly comment - let the reader be the judge.

Read more »

Who lacks imagination? Howard Jacobson on 'Conspiracy Theorists'

...in last Saturday’s Independent (28 August 2010):

Conspiracy theorists lack imagination: In our determined unimaginativeness, we turn Kelly and Blair alike into less than men.
('We' here of course means 'they': and make sure you're not one of them.)

Unfortunately, what follows is itself lacking in imagination. The introduction is a dreary trudge through the usual weary tropes:

those who see a conspiracy in the fall of every sparrow (shurely: suspect foul play behind the violent death of a publicly dissenting member of the military-intelligence establishment?)

Too much time on their hands

Paranoia

An overactive imagination (This is a cunning decoy hidden among all the other ever-so-reasonable possibilities)

they invent where invention is not called for

they reject plain and feasible explanations in favour of elaborate and unlikely ones

they mentally inhabit a middle earth of spies and secret agents, of liars, double-dealers, hypocrites, and murderers (like the one - hobbits aside - that Kelly physically inhabited then?)

the world explicable to them only as a place where nothing is as it seems and no one can be trusted to tell the truth

And later: the monkey of conspiracy is out of the cage

But what's the gimmick? What peg is this stuff hung on? Well, we know this already from the title and lead, and it's a pretty flimsy one, based on a minor departure from the otherwise rote recitation of ritual abuse:

But of this I am sure: suspicion might be the word for it, daydreaming might the word for it, but imagination is not. Instead of an excess of imagination, They have too little of it. That might get the attention of one of two of the lighter-sleeping readers.

So we have our headline, but how is it justified? What is the intriguing insight that underlies this modicum of originality in Jacobson's otherwise entirely pedestrian screed? We'll ignore the deeply uninformative literary namedropping, and get to the point.

Instead of the blind and innocent victim of malign political forces (for which read the "Bliar" Blair, or those he had unloosed), we were presented with a man more like ourselves in nature and in circumstance – a challenge to our imagination in the sense that profound fellow-feeling for suffering is always difficult when we would rather root out blame and apportion punishment.

Read more »

Review of 'Counterknowledge' by Damian Thompson

Review of 'Counterknowledge' by Damian Thompson - Word version

Full text:

Book Review: Damian Thompson, Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and Fake History

London: Atlantic Books.

Hardcover: 1 Jan 2008, ISBN 978-1843546757;

Paperback: 1 Jul 2008, ISBN 978-1843546764.

I.

Young-earth creationists in the US have built a museum containing mechanised tableaux showing dinosaurs and humans in Flintstone-style coexistence. ‘Alternative’ therapies of no more medical value than sugar pills are available on the British National Health Service, with homoeopathic hospitals well-established and degree courses available in one of the new universities. In US academia, some ‘Afro-centric’ historians play fast and loose with facts in their attempt to construct a distinctively ‘black’ history which, according to at least one proponent, is teachable only by black people. Meanwhile, postmodernist literary and cultural theorists take it upon themselves to develop ill-conceived philosophical doctrines about the nature of truth and reality - and even in some cases to offer criticisms of such specialised fields as quantum physics.

Damian Thompson criticises all these trends, with copious footnotes and some theoretical discussion. He alerts the reader to many other putative instances of "counterknowledge" - glossed: "misinformation packaged as fact" (p1) - and decries the "casual approach to the truth"(pp12, 44) that underlies and sustains them. This seems a worthwhile project, and in reviews it attracts descriptions such as ‘timely’ and ‘much-needed’. These epithets are somewhat hyperbolic: this is only the latest addition to a substantial body of debunking literature, which goes back at least to Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, first published in 1841.

To adapt a remark of Dr Johnson, while one expects to see it done, one is surprised that it is not done better. While many of Thompson’s points are correct as far as they go, the book’s defects are so numerous and glaring and themselves betray such a ‘casual approach to the truth’ that the reader could be forgiven for thinking that the word ‘Counterknowledge’ embossed across the front categorises its contents rather than defining its subject matter.

Read more »

No charges over Cash for Honours

The CPS seem to have made some errors - that's the charitable interpretation at least. As I understand the legal situation, the decision not to proceed - based it seems largely on the opinion of David Perry QC - is an executive decision not made under royal prerogative, and as such is open to judicial review on grounds of, among other things, irrationality. Let's hope someone with expertise in these things will make an application. Although a well-known silk has advised me that it's not very likely to succeed, it'd be intereting to hear all the evidence - just as it would be if Levy were to sue for wrongful arrest (as if!) CPS decision: "Cash For Honours" case - explanatory document Here are 5 deficiencies in the published explanation: 1. The fact that no-one had complained of receiving an offer is incorrectly taken as ruling out the possibility of charges based on such an offer (pa 24). This position is even more absurd given that anyone accepting such an offer is extremely unlikely to report it to the police. 2. The possibility of an agreement is, by contrast, considered (pa 24) - even though any agreement would almost certainly involve an offer, and an agreement is therefore less likely to have occurred, and in every non-bizarre case more difficult to establish, than a mere offer. 3. A substantive requirement that such an offer must be 'unambiguous' is incorrectly introduced out of nowhere (pa 23). This is a red herring. Either there was such an offer or there wasn't. It might be 'ambiguous' but still in the circumstances clearly an offer of the kind prohibited. Ambiguity might even be evidence of deliberate subterfuge and thereby dishonesty. 4. It was stated that there was strong evidence of 'proper reasons for the inclusion of all those whose names appeared on the 2005 working peers list' and that 'each was a credible candidate for a peerage'. (pa 29) This is either untrue or misleading, given that the Appointments Commission disagreed in the cases of three of the four donors (but none of the other, non-donor, appointees), ruling them clearly unsuitable even before it knew about the loans. See BBC NEWS | Politics | The Lords suitability question 5. The CPSs paraphrases the relevant Sale of Honours Act provisions as requiring that the loans, to be illegal, would have to be 'an inducement or reward for procuring, or assisting or endeavouring to procure, the grant of a dignity or title of honour' (pa 16). This ignores the catch-all provision: "or otherwise in connection with [the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person]". The catch-all alone makes a total nonsense of the analysis offered by the CPS. Another dubious decision has been reported: "the investigation effectively stalled after a diary kept by Sir Christopher Evans, allegedly detailing a series of meetings with Lord Levy, Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, was ruled inadmissible by lawyers considering the case". See Four more names emerge in cash for honours case | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics. There is no need to rely on the diary as evidence. Evans could simply be subpoenaed and examined on the matter. Furthermore, as I understand the matter - though I am no expert - the diary would be admissable as evidence of his unreliability should he (rather improbably I would have thought - ) choose to deny that the events it describes took place.

Blair's derangement

An interesting article by David Owen: Hubris and Nemesis in Heads of Government. While I agree that Blair suffered from a pathological excess of self-confidence, I think Owen goes a bit too easy on our dear departed leader. For example, he states: 

"I do believe, in contrast to many of their critics, that Bush and Blair did think gas and chemical weapons could be found inside Iraq in 2003, as did the intelligence services of France, Russia and Israel. They genuinely did fear that these weapons might be used, as gas had been previously used against Iran. They also dreaded the eventual development of Iraqi nuclear weapons."

I'm willing to accept - though not convinced by any means - that in some sense Blair believed in so-called WMD. But to say so without qualification is highly misleading. 

As Owen's comments elsewhere in the article suggest, there is such a thing as belief too quickly adopted, on insufficient evidence, or even no evidence. There is also such a thing as a reckless disregard for the truth. And there is an association between habitual lies and self-deceiving fantasy. My opinion of Blair is that his respect for truth had never been very great, and that his ability even to distinguish truth from falsehood had to an extent been corrupted. He started to believe his own lies, and to that extent they stopped being lies. But as long as some instinctive sense of what was useful influenced the beliefs he adopted, he was in some sense still lying.  

But there is an acknowledged association between hubris and incompetence in Iraq mentioned by a number of serious commentators. The restless energy of hubris that constantly intervenes often does so without all the factual information; the excessive self-confidence that does not seek advice or fails to listen to the wisdom of others makes serious mistakes; and along with inattention to detail and focus on the broad brush all combine to associate hubris with incompetence and poor judgement.

A verifiable toljaso to ovine hacks

Compare this astute bit of analysis made three days after the event:

Last Updated: Friday, 19 May 2006, 16:03 GMT 17:03 UK
Why is Blair backing nuclear?
Analysis by Nick Assinder, Political Correspondent, BBC News website

...many in Westminster believe...he is engaged in a classic Alastair Campbell-style attempt to deflect attention...his remarks about the likely need for new nuclear power stations - which were, in fact, only a re-statement of his long-held position - came on the same day the cash-for-peerages affair took another twist and a new immigration row erupted. It has also been pointed out that early briefings from Downing Street on what was going to be in his speech made no mention of energy policy and that Mr Blair appears to have rushed forward debate on the policy several weeks before originally intended.

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4989026.stm ]
 *******************************************************************

to this comment in response to BBC Political Editor's blog of 16 May, when Blair's announcement was first made:

*******************************************************************

18. At 01:36 AM on 17 May 2006, Tim Wilkinson wrote:

No comment on the timing of this to knock the continiuing police investigation into high-level corruption out of the headlines? I would have expected some analysis on evening news programs of the latest developments - do I smell govt. lawyers? D-notices? Or is deference, inertia and a self-fulfilling belief in Blair's wriggling ability fuelling disbelief amongst the media?

[ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2006/05/changing_the_su_1.html ]

*******************************************************************

Newsnight and all other TV news, the guardian, the times, all went with the obvious non-story instead of reporting the moment at which it started to look as though a serving Prime Minister might actually face criminal charges for corruption. Once the moment has passed and they have had time to think things over, they report Blair's 'brilliance' at manipulating the press with apparently no embarrassment at all.