Alistair Campbell Snivels 37


I was watching the Andrew Marr show when Alistair Campbell broke down, apparently overcome that anybody could doubt the integrity of Tony Blair.

A minute later Andrew Marr asked him if he were not troubled by the 800.000 deaths following the invasion of Iraq, and Campbell snapped back:

“You can’t prove that”.

It was a very revealing riposte. Not only did it contradict the tearful innocent demeanour, it revealed the mindset of the guilty. Innocent people in the throes of deep emotion shout out “That’s not true”. They don’t shout out “You can’t prove that”.

“You can’t prove that” is the riposte of the criminal who thinks he is too clever to be caught. It actually answered the question perfectly – no, Campbell never thinks about the Iraqis whose deaths he helped to cause.

Marr’s estimate was pretty conservative, but that’s not the point. The point is that Campbell was intimately involved in the policy decision not to estimate or comment upon any estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq, precisely to give the “You can’t prove that” defence.

Marr’s question was exactly the one the Chilcot committee failed to ask Blair. They allowed him to witter on about how much better Iraq is now than it was under Saddam. Nobody asked if it was better for the million dead, the four million maimed, the four million refugees, the tens of thousands of new babies with birth defects.

Blair was allowed to get away with a whole stream of top end estimates of Saddam’s atrocities using the phrade “On some accounts”. “On some accounts” 50,000 were gassed, “on some accounts” 1 million Iraqis died in the Iran Iraq war.

Nobody put it to Blair that “On some accounts” 1.4 million died as a result of the invasion he launched on a basis of lies.

One day, perhaps Alistair Campbell can try the waterworks technique on the judges in the Hague.


37 thoughts on “Alistair Campbell Snivels

1 2
  • NomadUK

    ‘One day, perhaps Alistair Campbell can try the waterworks technique on the judges in the Hague.’

    On that day, I will pop a fucking cork.

  • Vronsky

    This all implies a mad algebra, where it is possible to produce some sort of optimisation curve from which we can pick off the point at which the level of civilian dead just balances some putative gain from the killing. I am rather tired of seeing this ‘Campbell’ riposte – it most commonly appears in response to mention of that awfully inconvenient Lancet report. “Sure, we killed a shit-load of people – but not as many as you say, so it was worth it.”

    Clearly Hitler’s error was not in exterminating Jews, gays and invalids – just that he did too many. Tsk, tsk. An actuarial slip. Perhaps Mr Campbell would care to consult his tables, and volunteer the acceptable number?

    We should have a new physical unit, the ‘Campbell’, defined as the number of murders you can commit before anybody cares. It could simplify things for the MSM commentariat: the Guardian could tell us that the damage was only about 0.5 kC (kilo-Campbells), so nothing to worry about there. Move on happily to the crossword page.

  • mrjohn

    “One day, perhaps Alistair Campbell can try the waterworks technique on the judges in the Hague.”

    Oh happy day

  • Dick the Prick

    Craig, I applaud your optimism but deep down, well, a couple of centimetres down, you know they’ve gotten away with it. He was publicising his own book, his own pocket and his view that he is some kind of figure to be respected a la Harman – ‘don’t you know who I am’ type mentality.

  • Ed

    That was pretty good work by Andrew Marr. He and Campbell go back a way as Westminster journalists, and I expect Campbell was hoping for a more sympathetic forum.

    Instead he got subjected to continuous heavy-duty questioning, and in the end all he could offer was “you don’t know Tony like I do”. It was like a mafia hitman welling up about how well the capo had treated his family, and it got the derision it deserved.

  • MJ

    “Nobody asked if it was better for the million dead…”

    Living Iraqis have been asked and opinion polls consistently show that the majority think things are worse in Iraq since the invasion.

    So better for whom, in Campbell’s view? Presumably the oil companies, the GM food companies and Israel. Shows where his true allegiances lie.

  • Apostate

    Since the Hague is a Soros-financed operation only those who stand athwart Rothschild geostrategic war booty aggressions will end up on trial there.

    Hutus and Serbs currently clog the court’s deliberations.You’ll look hard to find any Tutsi RPF or Albanian KLA.

    In the aftermath of all wars the victors mete out any “justice” and the Balkan and Rwandan wars that both vastly aggrandized the real estate and power of the elites that provoked them in the first place are no exception.

    Any popping of champagne corks will be decidedly premature.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Yes, it’s shameful. The bare-facedness of the mendacity is shocking. He, and his erstwhile boss, Blair are both intelligent and charming psychopaths.

  • mike cobley

    Yes, intelligent and charming and oh so heartless and dead-eyed. Blair, Straw, Hoon, Campbell, Bush and Cheney in … Psychopath Club! The first rule of Psychopath Club is – always talk about Psychopath Club, in tones of hushed reverence and mutual admiration!

  • Edo

    “You can’t prove that”

    I noticed that. Very telling.

    I’m under no illusion about the mock snivel. Campbell is pure evil.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    The ‘Gates’ Push in Afghanistan

    A first rate apparatchik, the sleuth, infighter and faithful to the course, Robert(Bob)Gates is my arch enemy, the man behind the ‘surge’ and the ‘interlock’ mind behind the US missile silo launch code button.

    Gates is now wondering if he has waited too long to quit; but that thought is held within the deepest reaches of his twisted and tortured mind.

    The war in Afghanistan is personal to Gates; it was Gates who signed off the decision to ramp up US aid to the Mujahedin in the fight against Communism, including supplying Stinger missiles to knock out the robust, all terrain Russian helicopters. Today, Gates is the Hitler pressing Pakistan generals to murder the ‘monsters’ he created. Like a good CIA man, he wants someone else to do his dirty work.

    David Axelrod the wily advisor to President Obama has put the demure figure of Gates on a pedestal. Are these his final days or his lasting rule? To his pragmatic mind, the war in Afghanistan must be won, it is the US base for further operations, a backup that provides additional stability to his massive enclaves in Iraq, that currently are trembling from the cries of the American people to bring their loved ones home in July.

    A win in Afghanistan sounds the bugle for the survival of the ‘Black’ division within the CIA that yields enormous power in the US and UK, it is the parallel universe, Satan’s boudoir.

    The Iran contra killed Gates Snr, reflected in the younger’s poker face, his intensity, his determination and his control and duty that rules his existence as a cold blooded, competent cleaner. The Special-Ops hero who lands in the darkness of night, like a vampire, takes care of business and gets out.

    Gates is the emperor of ‘Drones’ ensuring that their presence in war has tripled in less than a year. His soldiers are his sons and daughters of death and he ensured they won the battle of Fallujah using deadly phosphorous gas to deliver a fear of subversion.

    Gates is the steward of the Pentagon machine, a guardian of secrets, he has the power to reverse a President’s decision to release the evil photographs of torture from Abu Ghraib and other military abuse withheld by George W Bush. Thus the values and principles Gates adheres to are corrupt and lack purpose.

    World peace rests on the demise of Gates, if he wins, Iran will be next, if he loses then the world can relax as the small distant light of adhesion grows bigger and binds the conscious of all peace loving minds in our currently broken world.

  • Mark

    Campbell’s snivelling was induced by seeing his patron’s integrity questioned; minutes later he’s dry-eyed and playing hardball at the mention of post invasion Iraqi casualities.

    Says it all really- another bullseye from Craig.

  • Richard Robinson

    “This all implies a mad algebra, where it is possible to produce some sort of optimisation curve from which we can pick off the point at which the level of civilian dead just balances some putative gain from the killing.”

    Various USA blogs wre doing this a few months back, with the Pakistan drone killings. “Less than thirty per ‘suspect'” seemed to be the tone of the reporting, business as usual, but more than that and it’s (briefly) a headline.

  • writerman

    it’s hard to see how Blair; and the rest of the cabal, who hi-jacked “liberal democracy” and pimped the UK into a whore for the benefit of the Great American Stud; can be held to account, without examining the nature of the “special relationship” in detail.

    Let’s face it, the UK is a kind of banana republic, a vassal state, piggy-backing on American power, and it’s been that way since Britain virtually destroyed itself trying to stop the rise of Germany as a world power. It may have succeeded in that goal, but at tremendous cost; the cost of its own position as a world power, was it worth it, I wonder, and who really “won”?

    The United States “won”, and since then the UK has been pretending that it “won” too. Yet exchanging an empire, for the role of a protectorate, dependent on American favour, isn’t much to shout about, is it?

  • writerman

    Campbell is a pathetic figure. When people like him are reduced to the old trick of using tears as a sign of “sincerity”, then they are up against the ropes, and they know it.

    I don’t think we’ll ever see Blair on trial, not in our lifetimes. The reason he mentioned Iran so many times, and Israel, was cunning. He was advertising his loyalty to both the Americans and Israel, and that he was ready and willing to whore himself again, should the need arise, that is, an attack on Iran.

    Why does the BBC continually use the term Iran’a “nuclear programme”? What’s wrong with calling it Iran’s nuclear power programme? After all, that’s what it is. There is no evidence that Iran is secretly building atomic weapons, why would they be so foolish, asking to be wiped off the map?

    “Nuclear programme” isn’t a neutral term. Most people assume this means – nuclear weapons programme.

  • Freeborn

    Good to see Campbell reduced to Cream of Tomato.

    The guy is plainly unbalanced and the psychopath description is not off the mark.

    http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode090_our_leaders-are_psychopaths.mp3

    Not long after the carnage Campbell had the chutzpah to take a live theatre show across the country.And some saps actually paid to see it(?).

    Ironically as his mental state now veers so markedly from frothing aggression to tears his interlocutor on this occasion was the Marrtian with cauliflower ears.This guy as I remember it was telling his BBC audience in the week the invasion was completed how right Blair had been proven on everything ad nauseum.

    Fittingly the two of them:Cream of Tomato and the Man from Mars ended up in panto together.

    I wonder what the aliens would make of them.

    “Funny old world!” would doubtless be the extraterrestrial consensus as they gazed at this pair of monsters from Earth.

  • Paul J. lewis

    “without examining the nature of the “special relationship” in detail” – from post above.

    The ‘special relationship’ is interesting. It appears that there are a number of countries that purport to have a ‘special relationship’ with the U.S.

    Saudi Arabia is one. Though in less reverent circles the it’s referred to as “the deal”; weapons for oil. Here ‘security’ means protection for, and continuance of, the House of Saud – rather than security for the people of Saudi Arabia.

    http://www.history.upenn.edu/economichistoryforum/docs/vitalis.pdf

    (“America’s Kingdom”, Robert Vitalis)

    Japan seems to be another.

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-ronald_reagan/article_1968.jsp

    Wikipedia seems to suggest some more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship_%28disambiguation%29

    Makes you wonder how many ‘special’ relationships one country can have.

  • ediot

    I suppose this is what it’s like living in a country run by gangsters.

    They’ve had their day, and it’s about time we had ours.

    Forget about The Hague. We ought to be putting them on trial ourselves for the destruction they’ve wrought on Britain alone!

    This goes way way beyond party politics.

  • ingo

    Thanks Clark for reminding me, its done.

    I agree with the general sentiment, the crocodile tears for fears have not worked on me either. It showed us all that Cambell is an emotional wreck.

    Mark Golding, loved your review of ‘Gates best murder plots’, thanks, it brought back memories, wonder what he was up to during the Vietnam war, the bastard.

    As for the two Israeli missile ships, should this news be real, then he will not have to do anything but wait, would he not?

    Missile ships steam into the gulf of Hormuz, a little too close to Quesh and is subsequently buzzed by Iranian speedboats. Taking this as a provocation Israel attacks using a missile aimed at Irans main oil terminal a littel further up the coast, or a similar target. Iran retaliates and within 24 hourse we will let all hell loose on them.

    Just one scenario right up Gates sleeve, he’ll come out saying that’we must support and protect our ally Israel from attack’bl;ah blah Irans secret nuclear facillities, possible nuclear stockpile, blah blah.

    lets hope I’m wrong.

  • Ruth

    Well maybe we should get a bounty together and put up posters of them wanted dead or alive. No doubt somebody would oblige.

  • Steelback

    It is frequently stated by British people who cry into their beer at the end of the night that our country has been reduced to a vassal state by our subservience to US interests.

    All very comforting to know that poor old Britain is the weak ally of a much larger state that is forever dragging her into nasty wars she fights without any relish whatever.

    It’s a myth.Just like the ones about our having the best police and soldiers in the world,and our quiet relinquishing of a once great Empire leaving behind our noble lesson in democracy to the natives!

    The idea is comforting but wholly unrecognisable to any American or anyone else who’s taken the trouble to ascertain the facts.

    It was Britain that solicited US help to join her in WW1.Britain was bankrupt when that war had begun and without the being able to count on finance that came from Rothschild agents,J.P.Morgan on Wall Street could not have even entertained the idea of a war against Germany in 1914.

    Again FDR was only too ready to involve himself on the British side in WW2 and had a secret agreement with Churchill to intervene on the side of Britain and France against Germany from long before the war even started.

    After WW2 ended Britain encouraged the French and Dutch to follow her in a policy of brutal counter-insurgency war to maintain control of colonies especially in the Far East.Indeed Britain passed on its experience in such wars to the US in SE Asia.

    Yes,Britain no longer has an Empire.But an Empire is not just constituted in national terms.Britain’s huge financial offshore banking network still launders money for international narcotic traffic just like the old East India Company did.Indeed this traffic finances international subversion in places as far apart as the Americas and Pakistan and China.

    1979 was a peak year for Britain in that you will find British intelligence was heavily involved in the recruiting Islamists for the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan as well as Iranian assets to remove the Shah and install Khomeini’s regime.Indeed it was British intelligence strategist Bernard Lewis who developed the Arc of Crisis strategy that is a mark of Anglo-US power projection in the Middle East.

    When you’re next crying into your beer give some thought to this history before you assume that Blair was Bush’s poodle.They were both puppeteered by the same elite network committed to use wars of aggression to forward their agenda for world domination.

    It suits the British oligarchy for you to think this country is not responsible for US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but the truth is a little more complex.

  • glenn

    The BBC has its priorities straight as ever. The 20:00 news bulletin (length – 2 mins, 2 seconds) on R4 spent the first 50 seconds reporting on Michael Jackson’s doctor, even going to their on-the-spot reporter in LA to bring us the latest on his pending prosecution. Time sensitive stuff indeed.

  • ingo

    I beleieve that the special relationship resulted from the secrets and secrets kept between the two victor countries, not what was obvious and apparent, it is unfortunate that we cannot quetion Werner von Braun and Josef Mengele.

  • Oliver

    ‘You can’t prove that’ from Campbell comes from the same mind set that delivered ‘One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.’

    He’s wrapping himself up in the statistics as he can’t afford to understand the value of a life now.

    The consequences of arriving at an understanding would break him.

    Reminded me a bit of MCnamara’s attitude in the Fog of War.

1 2

Comments are closed.