John Humphrys wasn’t having a very good morning today as he tried to manufacture a link between the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ISIS whilst interviewing US diplomat Paul Bremer who ran Iraq after the invasion.
Humphrys has history on Iraq being fervently opposed to the invasion and consistently making that clear throughout the time the US was in Iraq starting of course with his and Andrew Gilligan’s misleading allegation against Tony Blair…an allegation that may have coloured future public perception of the war and subsequent determination of politicians to execute it in a manner that would have brought a swifter and more complete conclusion…and less cost in lives, including our own British troops.
Humphrys made the uncategorical statement during the occupation that one million Iraqis had been killed, at a time when not even the most pessimistic were coming up with a figure anywhere near that. Humphrys also told us wrongly, that a recommendation to adopt the ‘surge’ of US troops into Iraq was not in the ISG report….unfortunately it was…..
We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.
Humphrys then went on to tell us that the ‘much vaunted surge’ was failing…despite the fact that only a few troops had actually arrived at that time and it was planned to take a considerable length of time to accomplish….and in the end the ‘much vaunted surge’ was indeed successful.
Humphrys wasn’t alone of course, many BBC journalists presented us with their own prejudiced opinion rather than facts… Fergal Keane tells Jay Garner his opinion:
’Iraq was a reckless adventure that has destroyed the lives of millions and killed 10’s of thousands, you must feel guilty about it.’
Humphrys in his latest interview with Bremer pushes the same narrative but seems remarkably unaware of the facts which undermine his own views as Bremer shoots him down every time…on top of that he keeps trying to make that link with ISIS.
Humphrys uses that old journalist’s trick of using ‘Some people might say’ when they are merely putting their own views forward.
Here Humphrys claims ‘some people might say‘ that Iraq was a catastrophic error and we are reaping the rewards of that today….and that democracy has deepened sectarianisms and lead to what we are seeing today. ( The BBC likes a good old fashioned dictatorial Empire…the Raj excepted of course…communist, european, Islamic…just loves them)
He continues that theme in a following interview with William Hague (08:13) when he asks ‘Do you accept that the invasion was not only a mistake but a catastrophic mistake?’
He starts from the premise that it was a mistake rather than asking a neutral question.
Hague makes the point that you can’t link 2003 to today saying that we shouldn’t always see events in terms of Western intervention, there are other major forces at work in the world. The BBC of course always applies the doctrine of Justinian’s Flea and narrows historic consequences down to a guilty moment in time…usually one where the British have a footprint.
Humphrys then turns to Hague’s ‘red carpet’ moment with Brangelina claiming Hague must have been embarrassed to be photographed with them…saying he looked starstruck and must have been diverted from real issues of the day.
This was the photograph…hardly starstruck, nor indeed anything really remarkable about the photo especially if you know the circumstances.
Humphrys could of course have talked about the below photo from the same conference, but chose not to…or could have mentioned that Hague was co-hosting the conference on sexual violence with Jolie…the same Jolie who is a UN special envoy….so why not ask the UN why they use a ‘film star’ to front their events?:
He could have used this photo from the BBC’s own report:
Sexual violence in war: Jolie praises leaders at summit end
Angelina Jolie has said sexual violence in conflict is now “firmly on the top table of international diplomacy”, as a global conference on the subject ended.
The actress and UN special envoy praised male leaders prepared to confront “the taboo” around the issue.
Ms Jolie was speaking alongside UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, who co-hosted the London summit with her.
Here’s Hague and Jolie again…pretty glam huh?
Or again…….
The conference was a major event in international diplomatic terms…as the BBC report above admits…and yet Humphrys makes a cheap attack on Hague based upon a single photograph of him walking into the conference centre with his co-host.
The Daily Mail reports the interview:
Hague dismisses ‘ridiculous’ claims he was starstruck hobnobbing with Pitt and Jolie while war raged in Iraq
William Hague today dismissed ‘ridiculous’ criticism of his decision to spend four days with Hollywood star Angelina Jolie while war raged in Iraq.
The Foreign Secretary appeared to accuse Radio 4 presenter John Humphrys of not asking intelligent questions about his appearances with Miss Jolie and her husband Brad Pitt.
Mr Hague insisted the star-studded summit to end sexual violence against women in war did not divert his attention away from the crisis of the day, stressing the UK government was ‘entirely capable of doing both’.
Last week the pair hosted a four-day summit in London, which culminated in a new international protocol which they hope will ‘shatter the culture of impunity’ around sexual violence in war.
However, it meant that as Islamist jihadists swept through large areas of Iraq, Mr Hague was posing for photographs with two of the world’s biggest film stars.
Today Mr Hague insisted the government was capable of focussing on immediate problems while also addressing long-term issues, like sexual violence in war at the summit.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘Anybody who thinks that should have been there, should have come along to it… This is about conflict prevention.
‘It brought together most of the world. We’re not going to solve conflicts of the many sorts we debate on this programme unless we address these appalling crimes.
‘The idea that you can never deal with long-term issues because there’s always something short-term, I always find rather ridiculous.’
And in apparent swipe at Mr Humphrys for even asking the question, he added: ‘With respect, I think the basis of your question has less basis than most of the highly intelligent questions.’
You could I suppose, using Humphrys’ criteria, ask why Humphrys wasted so much time during the BBC’s prestigious news programme making facile, point scoring, cheap shots when so much more important news is competing for his attention.
Then you could ask when Humphrys said this a while back…..
“If abuse that went on in Catholic Church had gone on in a lay organisation, it would be shut down”
…why he now thinks sexual violence used as a weapon in war, world wide, shouldn’t merit so much of Hague’s attention….or indeed if he thinks the BBC should be shut down…the quote coming before the Savile revelations.
“Humphrys in his latest interview with Bremer pushes the same narrative but seems remarkably unaware of the facts which undermine his own views…”
Hmm, sounds familiar. Somebody who enjoys ‘pushing a narrative’ while ‘unaware of the facts’. Who could that possibly be? Oh yes, Alan!
Who last week wrote this:
“This is a highly political programme that insults, denigrates and maligns those with right wing views, treating them as if they are a problem.”
A pretty strong verdict, given that he hadn’t actually heard the programme in question. It’s almost as if he had decided what he was going to think of it in advance. Surely not!
Now it’s actually been broadcast, Craig over at ‘Is the BBC Biased?’ – who, unlike Alan, bothers to watch or hear things before deciding whether they’re any good – has this devastating critique:
“This was an absolute pleasure to listen to from start to finish, fascinating and – especially gratifying – scrupulously fair too.”
No doubt Alan will be highlighting his own unwarranted prejudice, posting Craig’s review prominently and issuing a mea culpa for leaping to conclusions, since he’s so keen on ‘facts’ and so contemptuous of ‘pushing a narrative’.
Prepare to be dismissed as a troll.
Being labeled a “troll” has become a badge of honour here. The accusation tends only to be thrown around when one of Alan’s posts is debunked resulting in his acolytes and sycophants chanting in unison “don’t feed the troll”.
The worst troll infesting this site gets called a troll because he deliberately tries to sidetrack and distract – in a particularly whiny manner – and never answers directly even the most obvious charges of BBC bias. It is not “sycophantic” for anyone to point out what a troll that intruder is.
Oh – and the troll in question is the one who disgustingly declared the New York Times Square bomber to be “hot”. I am sure you would not wish to be associated with him.
“John Anderson” appears to be Vance’s latest false ID which he uses to cover his ponderously dull posts. You’ll note that Anderson appears when the old scrotum is busy on Twitter so expect this post to disappear shortly.
As a matter of interest, where is ‘here’?
An exclusive club, one might guess?
The first, if eager (early bird and all that), poster makes a few relevant points (if rather ignoring precedent long created by the BBC and staff engaged in summary-based pre-reviews or satire).
The second and yours… not so much.
Not sure what that could be deemed.
But Justathought may possibly wish you two had resisted chiming in as, best I can see, no one has dismissed the comment, and a fair few have added likes (despite the barely restrained descent into cheap-seat pleasers).
May have been more effective on that basis?
The biased clique who have hijacked public service BBC are still fighting their personal battle over the Gilligan/Kelly affair- blaming 2003 Iraq invasion for ISIS invasion , but not Obama /Cameron’s destabilising of Syria & their funding of islamic rebels in order to overthrow Assad, which is the real cause of current conflict.
Exactly
Judging by some of the images coming out of Iraq, it would appear that ‘Islamophobia’ is rife over there!
Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written article.
I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info.
Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly return.
This is funny! Vance has created a false id pretending he is a pussy lover from Mamora but tripping himself up be not knowing where it is.
Must be so desperate to get any response other from the hall of mirrors inside his own mind!
Wowzers ! Perhaps you’d like to ask mummy to explain the word ‘hypocrisy’ to you.
It’s click bait dumb ass.
I have no love for the continued bias the BBC demonstrates in its reporting, but going to the other extreme is also not right.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq and the current emergence of ISIS are certainly linked, and to deny this is understandable if you’re Tony Blair, but difficult to square with facts otherwise.
Saddam’s Iraq was stable before the western invasion; it wasn’t a paragon of virtue in any way of course, but to claim that the Saudi-backed sunnis that comprise the ISIS would have been able to move against the old Iraq is highly questionable.
This is without even getting into the full range of questions that a sound, professional and unbiased media [i.e. obviously not the mainstream media in the west] would be asking about US support of rebel groups in Syria, and the key inevitable question that arises – have the US directly or indirectly, deliberately or inadvertently, ended up furnishing arms to rebel groups that are considered ‘good’ when they’re on the Syria side of an arbitrary border drawn up almost a hundred years ago which ignored the distribution of ethnic and religiously sectarian groups at the time, but ‘bad’ when they move into the Iraq side of the same border.
Opposing the invasion of Iraq was a sound truly conservative view. In my opinion .
Others will not agree.
A conservative foreign policy should only consider what is in the interest of the country. Any wider question is irrelevant. Worthy perhaps .
Saddam was a nasty bit of work but he could have been made to serve our( Western ) interests.
Neocons and liberals take a moral view of these things.
In this world that is a habit best avoided.
The West’s actions in Iraq and Syria/Libya have had consequences. No thought beforehand and an excess of empathetic zeal and self righteousness.
Andrew Gilligan is in fact rather unusually for the BBC a Conservative voter he’s been exposing Islamic extremism in the UK for many years now. He’s hardly your typical BBC type. You don’t have to be a lefty to recognize the folly of our various foreign adventures over the last decade or so. Apart from daft neo-cons who themselves were once liberals nobody involved in sending our troops to these hellholes is ‘right-wing’. Opposition to the Iraq war is merely common-sense.
As a member of HM Forces I was one of the invaders of Iraq back in 2003. This invasion was founded on lies, and the (in my opinion justified) case for removing Saddam was forgotten in the (also justified) recriminations following the unravelling of those lies. The initial assault and occupation of Iraq was successful (we were winning when I left), however, there was virtually no plan in place to prevent that country’s slide into chaos. The US and British governments are primarily to blame for that; Rumsfeld’s “we don’t do nation building” laid the path for the Iranians and others to turn Iraq into a charnel house. So I think John Humphries’ hostile interview with Bremer was fair, rather than just another case of Yank bashing. There are many things wrong with the BBC; the pushing of agendas at cost of honesty and objectivity is definitely one of them. But not in this case.
‘John Humphrys …tried to manufacture a link between the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ISIS’
I remind you that its the interviewer’s role to put questions and act as devil’s advocate. As someone who supported the invasion, the link is hardly deniable. But its an obvious point to put to Paul Bremer. Alan isn’t able to put his own views aside though.
Humphrys has history on Iraq being fervently opposed to the invasion and consistently making that clear’
Do you care to provide any evidence for that?
an allegation that may have coloured future public perception of the war and subsequent determination of politicians to execute it in a manner that would have brought a swifter and more complete conclusion…and less cost in lives, including our own British troops.’
So John Humprhy’s interview with Giligan at 5am in which Guligan said the government ‘probably’ knew some of its intelligence wasnt accurate is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and of British troops!??!
Does the BBC also torture small, furry animals, or do you have to make out that the BBC is the great satan rather than simply a flawed presenter to justify your existence?
who would of thought that us in the uk and the west and the shia muslims of iran would form an alliance to fight and destroy the bloodthirsty 7th century isis sunni muslims crusading savages who see nobody who is not of there version of islam just subhumans to be slaughtered and butchered like dogs.but we have a problem in the west and the uk,the majority of the muslims living in are lands are sunni.that should worry us all.shia muslims are quiet a peacefull lot in a way if left alone,sunni muslims are violent crusaders who want destroy everything in there path,lets hope after we and the shia muslims finish off the isis in iraq we turn to syria and help president assad to destroy these sunni isis lot who are trying to turn that great country into an islamic sharia law state.
it is not are war,keep well out of it
Our naysaying trolls simply refuse to listen to the evidence of their own ears, let alone their eyes.
All I hear is the continual sucking up to the Sunnis, and the propagation of the myth that the “Free Syrian Army” are moderate, yet pissed off enough to act otherwise-and all because we refused to give them guns and cover last August.
So no wonder they`re turning into angry ISIS…because we`re not nice enough to one strand of barbaric islam supremacy, as opposed to the other strand of islamic evil on offer.
The BBC simply want the blood, the pictures-and the expenses, as well as the chance to moan when we lose decent soldiers…like the BBC warned the Tories all about.
F888in scum the BBC-whose kids/turkey basted spawn will never go near any war unless there`s a Bafta in it later.
Supply both sides-let them wipe each other out…but stay well clear.