The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
He obviously just wants to move on from it. The problem is he is such a belligerent bloke who himself isn’t averse to twisting situations to his benefit that people can’t help but remind him of his hypocrisy
It may be boring to him but he's just going to have to get used to it because Iraq is all he is going to be remembered for. For the rest of his life, the Iraq war will be a shadow on his shoulder, as it should.
Can you imagine a world where Churchill was only ever remembered for his role in the Dardanelles campaign! Mistakes made and acknowledged are the stuff of history!
@@DAVJULART Are you really comparing Alistair Campbell with Churchill? But okay, if we need to fight a fascist empire again and Campbell somehow proves instrumental in our victory then I will let bygones be bygones. Until that happens, he is and shall remain a war criminal.
"One of which , I've got a lot of experience..." in being deceitful in politics. Campbell is either completely lacking in self awareness, or just a dishonest c'nt. Probably a bit of both.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
@@robinj6137 So you trust the opinions of a man who made up some bs and lied the country into an illegal war? You don't think he's a self-serving egotist with a massive problem with truth like everyone else?
Hang on, is Alister Campbel trying to take the moral high ground on truth, I feel sick. This is a guy that tried to exert power as an unelected person and he's preaching about Trump, look it the mirror Mr Campbel.
@@londonphotographer1 Sounds a lot like Trump himself. 'The media are the problem... The entire system... Forces of conservatism'. Why doesn't he just come out and say the words 'deep state' when describing anyone who disagrees with him or asks awkward questions he's rather not answer? No wonder he prefers his own echo chamber podcast. I'm surprised he hasn't set up his own social media app.
A scumbag who needs holding to account...spin and lies to wage war on innocents...its just boring isn't it Alastair..as is your constant trolling of people who exercised their democraticr right to leave EU...boring
Wrong. One of the most humane voices out there. He also has the most successful podcast in the UK, not bad for a dyed in the wool socialist. No one is giving him free publicity.
because it gets engagement and people like you watch and comment ... - also he does actually have an interesting perspective and some insight - his podcast is actually very good
His podcast with the other feeble former viceory of Basra (Rory Stewart) is just drivel trotted out for their delusional sycophants who can't seem to fathom how we got from their illegal war and occupation to a permanent state of malais and general disillusionment with politics in this country. @@danielhall6354
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Campbell certainly never finds Brexit ‘boring’…He never shuts up about it. So Johnson ‘lied’ about Brexit, but Campbell only ‘sexed up’ his ‘Dodgy Dossier’.
Hard to believe a guy like this had so much power. He was the most appalling lier of all time in no 10. His brass is extraordinary. He has NO moral authority. I’m shocked he is taken even slightly seriously……
Astonishing that he accuses Sunak of lying over crime figures. When New Labour presided over the largest increase in crime, in the zuK, ever. Those figures from the actual crime statistics. Campbell used to spin crime figures so hard, he insisted they went down and there was no crime, . Whilst the ASBO came into its ineffective own during that time. Entire libraries of books, written by police officers, informed that the figures were massaged
@@nigelhopkinson6614 But Johnson didn't egg on a horrific war that cost hundreds of British lives and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Campbell is by far the deadliest liar of all; a war propagandist who has gone unpunished for far too long.
The poor man just doesn’t see the reality of his own past. A past which damages the credibility of his contributions to the present. His is a toxic brand. Sad really…
I don’t think the families of the fallen soldiers will feel the same way. The man shows no remorse, shame or responsibility. Don’t know how he sleeps at night.
Blair is your typical toxic narcissist. His kind always claw and backstab their way to the top. That’s why you need to be very careful who you vote for, very careful.
No it doesn't always come from journalists. It's just that you wouldn't go anywhere near the public in case they questioned you. This man is trying to put forward all kinds of smoke screens around him. MOST people who are capable of thinking know what you are guilty of.
@@thecomputingchronicles I'm not so sure about that. Saddam was a friend of the west at one time and was used to fight Iran. When he failed he was dropped and removing him has left the country in near anarchy ever since despite the fact of his treatment of his marsh arabs.
@@thecomputingchronicles I know what you are going to say, threats of terrorism,biological and nuclear wars and Kuwait with his setting fire to it's oil fields but we should not have bombed them. It's just giving ammunition against us to other hostile nations decades later as we see today. The arrogance of the Blairites is equal to the Tories today.
I wonder what the families of all the Iraqis who have died since the illegal invasion led by the US and UK would say to Alistair’s response that questions about the Iraq war are “boring”. Despicable.
@@bwright227 I’m genuinely intrigued to understand how my comment is “disingenuous”. If someone I loved died as a consequence of a civil war, triggered by an invasion which relied upon the most specious of subsequently discredited ‘evidence’, I would not consider the assertion disingenuous.
it's like you don't understand the context of the question or his answer - he's basically saying why ask something that has been asked a milli8on times before and that he has a prepared answer for? Do you think for a second he'd say that it was right that those civilians died?
The essence of Campbell's problem is that no matter which tactic he uses, shouting, insulting etc, most people do not agree with him and he resents the fact that his view is rejected by the majority.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Hey Ivan, shouldn't you be 1) making pro-ruZzian comments on other videos, 2) counting your potatoes, and 3) ordering more velcro to convert your remaining shoes, as laces are just too hard for you?
@@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304 Hahaha how many did they con you into taking?? And besides, I have undermined the world's crime you call the "covid response", not just my own country.
@@WHS_reviews If you are a fan of Campbell, so much you are angrily defending him, good luck. Follow everything he says. I have no doubt Ukraine will end up in the same state as Iraq after these vampires are done with it.
you can't unironically be calling him a war criminal? come on now - perhaps view the events though a less ideological and emotional lens - have some understanding and nuance...
Those that criticize that conflict have no answer to what they would have done differently. Should we have left Saddam Hussein, his family, and his cronies in power to this day? and please don't say that Iraqis would have preferred "the stability" of a dictator. Tell that to the minorities and critics who lost their lives to his genocides and would have continued to do so to this day.
I think the people to ask would be ones whose son, husband, or father came back from Iraq in a box. Speaking as an American who was in OIF twice, I question my government's propensity for spending lives and treasure on foreign wars that whether we win or lose have absolutely no impact on daily life in America whatsoever.
I kinda agree with you. Morally, it was the right thing to do. If Bush had got his way in Iraq it would be a better place now. But in practice, sadly, the cost to Iraqis was too great. And its they who paid that price. Do we have a right to decide that? Besides, the moral case wasn't helped by Campbell's usual grubby little spin tactics. If he'd had any self awareness at all, he'd have taken a long, long media vacation.
The UK is not the police of the world. It has no right to interfere illegally into another country. The United Nations voted against what the UK and US did
@@ashcarrier6606 soldiers are there to do what they do and considering the size of the forces involved the coalition forces did an incredible job to end that vile regime with minimal losses on their part. Generally, I can’t imagine why anyone would join the military if they didn’t accept they’d be used as a hard-force solution to a problem at some point.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
To call the Iraq war subject boring, is insulting to the many who's lives that were effected by it. He could at least chose better words and have some respect.
A war propagandist going unpunished is never boring. What actually is boring is his never-ending tantrum and lies about brexit. His role in the illegal invasion of Iraq and al the lies he spun in order to get that horrific war started is never boring.
He was a big part in Britain's participation in that illegal war and occupation, he promoted and falsely justified the policy of regime change. @@danielhall6354
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
I like how this title is misleading, and doesn't match what was said in the video. It allows you to see just how many of the commenters didn't actually watch the video. It's quite illuminating.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
And this joker should be his cell mate. But because our so called system is so corrupt they are allowed to walk free while people like Assange who expose their crimes are hounded till their dying days. What a world.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Fair play to him for at least coming on Times Radio and trying to have a debate. Why all these TH-cam channels love to concentrate on the past and then edit a video in a certain style staggers me. So much wrong with country now that needs fixing no matter which political party you follow.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
What am incredibly evil man. My only question i would have for this “man” would be how do you live with yourself after what you did to millions of people.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Need not respond to Iraq answers over and over again especially to individuals who refuse to study the issue more thoroughly, read more history or political philosophy or think more analytically. We most stopped flogging our politicians on that subject.
A war which the united nations called illegal, in which over 100,000 Iraqis civilians died and it's "boring" talking about his part in it. What a sickening and disrespectful individual. He seems contemptuous of those wanting the truth and justice.
The guy is every bit the war criminal that Blair and Bush are. They hypocrisy of the West is truly staggering when they point the finger at Putin while pretending they didn’t do exactly the same thing a few years back.
Badly needed? He doesn't have solutions and just peddles the same failed policies and ideology which has destroyed not only Britain but the West in general.
Tucker, sorry Campbell will never out spin Iraq and his part in it and he is so arrogant and dismissive when discussing it that it does him no favours, the world is still suffering the effects of it.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Of course they are boring Alastair...if you mean uncomfortable truths are boring you then they are boring Thousands of dead Iraqis families would disagree I bet
The “boring” quote and section you clipped at the start had nothing to do with Iraq. They were talking about Alastair’s role in spin at the time. Incredibly misleading journalism.
Agreed. They accusers have had 20 years to present the evidence and none has ever been provided. Mistakes were made not in the execution of the Iraq war but in the fact they didn’t overthrow Sadam’s regime in the aftermath of the Kuwait invasion in 1990, when Iraqis were in open revolt, mainly due to cowardice on the part of the US administration, and that they didn’t in 2003 properly foresee or prepare for the blood letting and violence that follow the collapse of such a violent regime.
She the way he moved the narrative to brexit just when I was hoping the journalist would corner him on the horrific outcome of his mistakes.. he forgives himself by saying to himself that he was lied to so he won’t take any responsibility. He’s a walking demon.
I dare say if anyone asked Hermann Goring about the Battle of Britain they would get a similar answer to Campbell's. He is a most repulsive and vile character.
Honestly it is crazy to meet this guy first in The rest is politics, think good of him, see him discussing Irak as if he had no part on it, then search his name in Wikipedia once and boom you're right with Kissinger's favourite twice removed nephew.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Annoyingly, I find Campbell interesting, but just can't see past the hypocrisy. "The only people who ever ask this question is journalists," is literally a Trump-style response which implies: I don't go by what the media say, I go by what the people say. Noone has ever answered for Iraq in court, so there will always be questions. Just like Andrew will never be see the inside of a courtroom over Epstein, so he will always have questions. Also, I am not a journalist, but I would love to ask him those questions, I'm just unlikely to run into him down the local Sainsbury's. Be more honest 2023!
@@StuartJ people like you can & will prattle on about a bad war 2 decades ago, whilst ever more tory administrations come and go, each hoovering up the national wealth for themselves and their mates, whilst you wait & wait for your ideologically pure messiah
Do people think the Tories would not have joined the US in Iraq? Maybe I'm missing info, but this seems like a key question that only Rory explores on their podcasts on Iraq.
The government at the time (which Campbell was a small part of ) decided to follow America and remove a dictator from power . The were many unintentional civilian casualties but Iraq is in a much better place for it . You could argue no war is right
@@crowbar9566 The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...
A study by Professor Theakston of the University of Leeds concluded New Labour was the best government this country ever had. I agree with this study, I think Blair modernised Britain, was the most honest and effective prime minister of all time. Then we had the coalition which wasn't awful, wasn't too bad. Then the country voted Brexit in 2016 and that was the beginning of this country's decline. Brexit hasn't benefited this country at all and has only reduced trade and our influence in the world.
@@QwadLuzr The number of children and seniors lifted out of poverty speaks for itself. Brown is actually credited with handling the financial crisis well with global coordination. Unfortunately the austerity didn't bring economic growth, so on the whole New Labour did a lot of good things. But understandably some people won't forgive the war or the immigration rate of the time. Yet Britain's standing was much higher during the Blair-Brown era.
@@murderincme Yes and it fell from there. Every public service is in crisis due to unsustainable population growth, caused by migration, let alone the dream of having a house and family, all stolen by the new labour project.
Alistair is definitely not 'spot on' - just read the comments - 99% against and then the oddity (you) pops up in support without offering any valid defence of this odious character.
Correct. And it will continually get worse until the majority of the population demand that it be reversed. And the economy and inflation are getting so bad now that that is starting to happen.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication. The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis. Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie. They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities. Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion. This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
![ไลฟ์สุ่ม iPhone 295 บาท... โกงมั้ย?[ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.97 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gdstHEE4UUE/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm sure the families that lost loved one's in Iraq will be pleased to hear that their deaths are boring and not worth talking about...
It is boring though. He has explained himself many times
Disingenuous comment
Well said
@@chrishobson6431 And nobody believes him.
My thoughts exactly!!
If you were a spin doctor complicit in an illegal invasion what else would you say?
This man will never accept his crimes. It's pathetic to see.
Maybe because he hasnt been convicted of a crime.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
@@davecross4493 Can you explain what happened to David Kelly and why?
The weapons inspectors at the time were finding nothing so why couldn't they be given more time?
Might be boring but you are accountable
No he's never been held accountable. None of them have.
Being told something is boring by a bore..oh the irony😂
He obviously just wants to move on from it. The problem is he is such a belligerent bloke who himself isn’t averse to twisting situations to his benefit that people can’t help but remind him of his hypocrisy
It may be boring to him but he's just going to have to get used to it because Iraq is all he is going to be remembered for. For the rest of his life, the Iraq war will be a shadow on his shoulder, as it should.
Can you imagine a world where Churchill was only ever remembered for his role in the Dardanelles campaign! Mistakes made and acknowledged are the stuff of history!
@@DAVJULART Are you really comparing Alistair Campbell with Churchill? But okay, if we need to fight a fascist empire again and Campbell somehow proves instrumental in our victory then I will let bygones be bygones. Until that happens, he is and shall remain a war criminal.
well, for that, come to Aus
perhaps only to people with an un healthy obsession
Not even the same league so don't bother com[aring the two. @@DAVJULART
I would love to see Campbell try and make that point in the middle of Baghdad or visit some veterans of the war
Yup, and if they had any sense they'd accept his answer!
Or at The Hague
POV: You read to title and not what he actually said
he says only journalists ask him about iraq.... cause your average person would go straight to the kicking.
"One of which , I've got a lot of experience..." in being deceitful in politics. Campbell is either completely lacking in self awareness, or just a dishonest c'nt. Probably a bit of both.
He just sounds bitter. Bitter about being found out for the man that he is.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
@@davecross4493shut up chatgpt
Because many British soldiers died, this guy thinks it’s boring?
He’s saying his responses are boring because he repeats the same answers. Not the same is it?
No, that is not remotely what he said. Listen again
@@Fort976 We don't want to listen to the lies of a war propagandist. He should be in prison, not ranting on tv and radio about Brexit.
I don't care about what he did or didn't do wrt Iraq. I only care that he delivered for Britain and has astute fact based political observations now
@@robinj6137 So you trust the opinions of a man who made up some bs and lied the country into an illegal war? You don't think he's a self-serving egotist with a massive problem with truth like everyone else?
The utter contempt is jaw dropping.
Hang on, is Alister Campbel trying to take the moral high ground on truth, I feel sick. This is a guy that tried to exert power as an unelected person and he's preaching about Trump, look it the mirror Mr Campbel.
@@londonphotographer1 Sounds a lot like Trump himself. 'The media are the problem... The entire system... Forces of conservatism'. Why doesn't he just come out and say the words 'deep state' when describing anyone who disagrees with him or asks awkward questions he's rather not answer? No wonder he prefers his own echo chamber podcast. I'm surprised he hasn't set up his own social media app.
He's morally repugnant .
@@londonphotographer1 Vampires don't have a reflection.
A scumbag who needs holding to account...spin and lies to wage war on innocents...its just boring isn't it Alastair..as is your constant trolling of people who exercised their democraticr right to leave EU...boring
Campbell is a despicable character. Why do we keep giving him the oxygen of publicity?
Wrong. One of the most humane voices out there.
He also has the most successful podcast in the UK, not bad for a dyed in the wool socialist. No one is giving him free publicity.
What’s gone wrong with politics?. People lie, him and Blair were given power.
because it gets engagement and people like you watch and comment ... - also he does actually have an interesting perspective and some insight - his podcast is actually very good
His podcast with the other feeble former viceory of Basra (Rory Stewart) is just drivel trotted out for their delusional sycophants who can't seem to fathom how we got from their illegal war and occupation to a permanent state of malais and general disillusionment with politics in this country. @@danielhall6354
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Campbell certainly never finds Brexit ‘boring’…He never shuts up about it.
So Johnson ‘lied’ about Brexit, but Campbell only ‘sexed up’ his ‘Dodgy Dossier’.
That is true
Don't mention David Kelly.
Brexit is only beginning to unfold so is not boring or irrelevant. Unlike you
@@robinj6137 I’m cut to the quick…🤣😂😅
Hard to believe a guy like this had so much power. He was the most appalling lier of all time in no 10. His brass is extraordinary. He has NO moral authority. I’m shocked he is taken even slightly seriously……
Astonishing that he accuses Sunak of lying over crime figures. When New Labour presided over the largest increase in crime, in the zuK, ever. Those figures from the actual crime statistics.
Campbell used to spin crime figures so hard, he insisted they went down and there was no crime,
.
Whilst the ASBO came into its ineffective own during that time. Entire libraries of books, written by police officers, informed that the figures were massaged
And just about what a high bar that is to be one of the biggest liars to pass through no 10
Sorry Johnson has the crown for the worst liar of all time
The guy is a war criminal like his buddy Blair. But because our so called system is corrupt to the core he is allowed to still be walking free.
@@nigelhopkinson6614 But Johnson didn't egg on a horrific war that cost hundreds of British lives and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives. Campbell is by far the deadliest liar of all; a war propagandist who has gone unpunished for far too long.
The poor man just doesn’t see the reality of his own past. A past which damages the credibility of his contributions to the present. His is a toxic brand. Sad really…
Arrogant. Guilty of the mess in Iraq.
This p.o.s. is sadly typical of our political establishment. Utter contempt for anyone that has a memory and a moral compass.
I don’t think the families of the fallen soldiers will feel the same way. The man shows no remorse, shame or responsibility. Don’t know how he sleeps at night.
Blair is your typical toxic narcissist. His kind always claw and backstab their way to the top. That’s why you need to be very careful who you vote for, very careful.
Like anyone who's made mistakes he's moved on and doesn't like so many others live in past.
@@DAVJULARTc***t!!!.
Lack of self awareness is incredible
No it doesn't always come from journalists. It's just that you wouldn't go anywhere near the public in case they questioned you. This man is trying to put forward all kinds of smoke screens around him. MOST people who are capable of thinking know what you are guilty of.
Don't assume that most people were happy to leave Saddam Hussein in power.
@@thecomputingchronicles I'm not so sure about that. Saddam was a friend of the west at one time and was used to fight Iran. When he failed he was dropped and removing him has left the country in near anarchy ever since despite the fact of his treatment of his marsh arabs.
@@rodneycooperLMSCoach It goes way beyond the Marsh Arabs. I can list you a long list of events.
@@thecomputingchronicles I know what you are going to say, threats of terrorism,biological and nuclear wars and Kuwait with his setting fire to it's oil fields but we should not have bombed them. It's just giving ammunition against us to other hostile nations decades later as we see today. The arrogance of the Blairites is equal to the Tories today.
@@thecomputingchronicles unfortunately critical people are highly selective in what they choose to remember🙄
I wonder what the families of all the Iraqis who have died since the illegal invasion led by the US and UK would say to Alistair’s response that questions about the Iraq war are “boring”. Despicable.
Is there such a thing as a legal invasion?.
That is very disingenuous Grant
@@bwright227 I’m genuinely intrigued to understand how my comment is “disingenuous”. If someone I loved died as a consequence of a civil war, triggered by an invasion which relied upon the most specious of subsequently discredited ‘evidence’, I would not consider the assertion disingenuous.
it's like you don't understand the context of the question or his answer - he's basically saying why ask something that has been asked a milli8on times before and that he has a prepared answer for? Do you think for a second he'd say that it was right that those civilians died?
The essence of Campbell's problem is that no matter which tactic he uses, shouting, insulting etc, most people do not agree with him and he resents the fact that his view is rejected by the majority.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Some people have no shame
Imagine killing so many and causing such disasters, then still being paid to tell people what you think.
Says the QAnon loony who says nobody died from Co-Vid and posts demands for doctors to be executed
Hey Ivan, shouldn't you be 1) making pro-ruZzian comments on other videos, 2) counting your potatoes, and 3) ordering more velcro to convert your remaining shoes, as laces are just too hard for you?
I see your content worked very hard to undermine the country's covid response. Shame on you too, dude.
@@proselytizingorthodoxpente8304 Hahaha how many did they con you into taking?? And besides, I have undermined the world's crime you call the "covid response", not just my own country.
@@WHS_reviews If you are a fan of Campbell, so much you are angrily defending him, good luck. Follow everything he says. I have no doubt Ukraine will end up in the same state as Iraq after these vampires are done with it.
Do as I say not as I do..
War criminals don't like to be asked about their crimes.( as we can see)
you can't unironically be calling him a war criminal? come on now - perhaps view the events though a less ideological and emotional lens - have some understanding and nuance...
Those that criticize that conflict have no answer to what they would have done differently. Should we have left Saddam Hussein, his family, and his cronies in power to this day? and please don't say that Iraqis would have preferred "the stability" of a dictator. Tell that to the minorities and critics who lost their lives to his genocides and would have continued to do so to this day.
I think the people to ask would be ones whose son, husband, or father came back from Iraq in a box.
Speaking as an American who was in OIF twice, I question my government's propensity for spending lives and treasure on foreign wars that whether we win or lose have absolutely no impact on daily life in America whatsoever.
I kinda agree with you. Morally, it was the right thing to do. If Bush had got his way in Iraq it would be a better place now. But in practice, sadly, the cost to Iraqis was too great. And its they who paid that price. Do we have a right to decide that? Besides, the moral case wasn't helped by Campbell's usual grubby little spin tactics. If he'd had any self awareness at all, he'd have taken a long, long media vacation.
The UK is not the police of the world. It has no right to interfere illegally into another country.
The United Nations voted against what the UK and US did
They'll be under Iranian boots instead as their political system collapses
@@ashcarrier6606 soldiers are there to do what they do and considering the size of the forces involved the coalition forces did an incredible job to end that vile regime with minimal losses on their part. Generally, I can’t imagine why anyone would join the military if they didn’t accept they’d be used as a hard-force solution to a problem at some point.
Alistair Campbell will not start on the road to forgiveness until he apologises.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
To call the Iraq war subject boring, is insulting to the many who's lives that were effected by it. He could at least chose better words and have some respect.
When Macron, Merkel and Hollande are the only allies to your vision you can think of, you're really scraping the barrel.
YOU’RE what’s wrong with politics Aleister Campbell, war criminal.
A war propagandist going unpunished is never boring. What actually is boring is his never-ending tantrum and lies about brexit. His role in the illegal invasion of Iraq and al the lies he spun in order to get that horrific war started is never boring.
you are talking as if war only happened becasue of him
He was a big part in Britain's participation in that illegal war and occupation, he promoted and falsely justified the policy of regime change. @@danielhall6354
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Of course it’s boring to you Alistair because you just don’t like to be confronted with your lies and arrogance.
He's still trying to manipulate how people think.
Tony Blair should be in court for war crimes..
thats totally delusional - how can anyone seriously say something like that?
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
@@danielhall6354 The wmds were proven to be a deliberate lie. Also what happened to David Kelly?
If he were in jail, we wouldn't have to listen to this anymore.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
@@davecross4493 I don't think Dr David Kelly would agree.
I like how this title is misleading, and doesn't match what was said in the video. It allows you to see just how many of the commenters didn't actually watch the video. It's quite illuminating.
Absolutely liar about Iraq…
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Blair should be in jail !!!
And this joker should be his cell mate. But because our so called system is so corrupt they are allowed to walk free while people like Assange who expose their crimes are hounded till their dying days. What a world.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
He is purely delusional
His horrific. His daughter is horrific. They’re contempt for working class people is palpable
Fair play to him for at least coming on Times Radio and trying to have a debate. Why all these TH-cam channels love to concentrate on the past and then edit a video in a certain style staggers me. So much wrong with country now that needs fixing no matter which political party you follow.
He wants publicity, it's a quid pro quo.
Fair play????,.... yurakok!.
It’s not boring to the people his actions murdered!
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
This man is a clear narsasist by putting other's down distracting attention away from himself.
Him and Blair should be behind bars !!)
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Amongst the many who care, there are the families of the dead and wounded who don't find it boring.
Not boring for my family, as my nephew died there.
Let me question the goon.
What am incredibly evil man. My only question i would have for this “man” would be how do you live with yourself after what you did to millions of people.
Tony Blair came into office on a wave of popularism... but this charatan does not see it.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Campbell was a bully in the lead up to 2003 invasion.
Mr Campbell losing a family member in your panacea is horrific not boring let's hope you don't meet your end in a pointless violent way
Did his breath smell of drink?
Need not respond to Iraq answers over and over again especially to individuals who refuse to study the issue more thoroughly, read more history or political philosophy or think more analytically. We most stopped flogging our politicians on that subject.
Bless him he looks obnoxious sounds obnoxious and is obnoxious . He justs talksin a louder over others and seems to earn a living doing exactly this
“Boring” tell that to 1,000,000 dead and millions more displaced
See you next Tuesday Alastair....
A war which the united nations called illegal, in which over 100,000 Iraqis civilians died and it's "boring" talking about his part in it. What a sickening and disrespectful individual. He seems contemptuous of those wanting the truth and justice.
A badly needed voice - whether you agree or not doesnt matter - the UK is in very serious trouble and still far from rock bottom.
We are in danger from war criminals.
The guy is every bit the war criminal that Blair and Bush are. They hypocrisy of the West is truly staggering when they point the finger at Putin while pretending they didn’t do exactly the same thing a few years back.
Badly needed? He doesn't have solutions and just peddles the same failed policies and ideology which has destroyed not only Britain but the West in general.
Tucker, sorry Campbell will never out spin Iraq and his part in it and he is so arrogant and dismissive when discussing it that it does him no favours, the world is still suffering the effects of it.
It's criminal
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
This is a joke, right?
I marched against the Iraq invasion but the headline chosen by Times Radio is pretty misleading, trash journalism.
Of course they are boring Alastair...if you mean uncomfortable truths are boring you then they are boring
Thousands of dead Iraqis families would disagree I bet
Maybe to stay sane he has to delude himself about what he's done.
exactly what’s happened
Alastair Campbell - Israel’s man on the inside.
The “boring” quote and section you clipped at the start had nothing to do with Iraq. They were talking about Alastair’s role in spin at the time. Incredibly misleading journalism.
It's fine we got away with it, lost a few chaps and pieces of equipment, no one can attack the UK itself , God save the king rule Britannia
Agreed. They accusers have had 20 years to present the evidence and none has ever been provided. Mistakes were made not in the execution of the Iraq war but in the fact they didn’t overthrow Sadam’s regime in the aftermath of the Kuwait invasion in 1990, when Iraqis were in open revolt, mainly due to cowardice on the part of the US administration, and that they didn’t in 2003 properly foresee or prepare for the blood letting and violence that follow the collapse of such a violent regime.
You haven't a clue, have you?
Ask him about Dr kelly
110% a criminal. Jail time is even to good for this Megalomaniac.
She the way he moved the narrative to brexit just when I was hoping the journalist would corner him on the horrific outcome of his mistakes.. he forgives himself by saying to himself that he was lied to so he won’t take any responsibility. He’s a walking demon.
Imagine hosting this war-criminal then taking down Russell Brand.
I am a ex soldier who served in op teilc in 2004. This clown needs to tell us veterans WHY? Why did we go to Iraq. So WHY?
I dare say if anyone asked Hermann Goring about the Battle of Britain they would get a similar answer to Campbell's. He is a most repulsive and vile character.
this shows you just didnt really understand what his point was
Whataboutery is perfectly acceptable. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s not
Honestly it is crazy to meet this guy first in The rest is politics, think good of him, see him discussing Irak as if he had no part on it, then search his name in Wikipedia once and boom you're right with Kissinger's favourite twice removed nephew.
Campbell is as immovable as Gibraltar on Iraq, it’s frustrating but ultimately pointless to press him on it.
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Not boring to our war dead or the millions of Iraqis who died...,
He’s “ I’m not a grass…” broadcast to the world.
The public are asking to Alistair!
Sexed up the dossier .... hey dossier, I've been waiting a long, long time ...
This guy is a See You Next Tuesday
Think Pete mandelson with a moustache
Putin will find Ukraine boring.
Annoyingly, I find Campbell interesting, but just can't see past the hypocrisy. "The only people who ever ask this question is journalists," is literally a Trump-style response which implies: I don't go by what the media say, I go by what the people say.
Noone has ever answered for Iraq in court, so there will always be questions. Just like Andrew will never be see the inside of a courtroom over Epstein, so he will always have questions. Also, I am not a journalist, but I would love to ask him those questions, I'm just unlikely to run into him down the local Sainsbury's.
Be more honest 2023!
Yeah. Saddam Hussein should still be in power. He was a wonderful man.
@@markpalmer8083c***t!.
Role=war criminal
Just forgot everything Alistair 😄
Out damned spot. Fingers in ears lah lah lah lah lah. Iraq war lies only matters to journalists.
Err NO.
Bla bla bla 👎👎👎
Malignant Narc
I am sick of hearing about Iraq, like its all that happened in the only 12 years of non tory rule I have known in my life.
It won't go away until the war criminals that started it are in jail.
@@StuartJ people like you can & will prattle on about a bad war 2 decades ago, whilst ever more tory administrations come and go, each hoovering up the national wealth for themselves and their mates, whilst you wait & wait for your ideologically pure messiah
Then it will never go away. Invading other nations based on nothing but lies and BS is apparently ok when we do it.
Do people think the Tories would not have joined the US in Iraq? Maybe I'm missing info, but this seems like a key question that only Rory explores on their podcasts on Iraq.
I mean, Canada got roped into the middle east too. When the USA says jump, countries like Canada and Britain just say, "how high?"
Alistair Campbell is absolutely spot on . Half the population has been gas lit and don't even realise it . One day they will .
He a war propagandist who got off scot-free with his deceitful role in a horrific war and not the person to be talking about this.
The government at the time (which Campbell was a small part of ) decided to follow America and remove a dictator from power . The were many unintentional civilian casualties but Iraq is in a much better place for it .
You could argue no war is right
@@miller2624Iraq is better?
@@crowbar9566 The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing...
Who is the interviewer?
However, the mug is correct about post truth.
Im surprised they are still alive rotten to the core
A study by Professor Theakston of the University of Leeds concluded New Labour was the best government this country ever had. I agree with this study, I think Blair modernised Britain, was the most honest and effective prime minister of all time. Then we had the coalition which wasn't awful, wasn't too bad. Then the country voted Brexit in 2016 and that was the beginning of this country's decline. Brexit hasn't benefited this country at all and has only reduced trade and our influence in the world.
I bet you clapped on your doorstep when they shut the economy for 2 years and Blair destroyed this country for the young, greedy boomers love him.
@@QwadLuzr The number of children and seniors lifted out of poverty speaks for itself. Brown is actually credited with handling the financial crisis well with global coordination. Unfortunately the austerity didn't bring economic growth, so on the whole New Labour did a lot of good things. But understandably some people won't forgive the war or the immigration rate of the time. Yet Britain's standing was much higher during the Blair-Brown era.
@@murderincme Yes and it fell from there. Every public service is in crisis due to unsustainable population growth, caused by migration, let alone the dream of having a house and family, all stolen by the new labour project.
Your delusional Jake.
GB's decline, on the world stage, can be traced to Suez rather than Brexit. 'Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies' - Pope Pius X.
Alastair is spot on !
Would not trust a word he os a twister along with Blair.
Alistair is definitely not 'spot on' - just read the comments - 99% against and then the oddity (you) pops up in support without offering any valid defence of this odious character.
Well said, Alastair. Brexit has been a catastrophe for the poor old UK. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!
It really hasn't
Yeah and the rot set in with the Labour government under Blair and carried on by this lot
Correct. And it will continually get worse until the majority of the population demand that it be reversed. And the economy and inflation are getting so bad now that that is starting to happen.
War Crimes is like so 20 years ago
Unless your Putin of course. Apparently it’s ok when we do it🤪
The Labour Government of the time based their decisions on the best intelligence available at the time, which suggested Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a global threat. This stance was taken in the context of a post-9/11 world, where the risk of WMDs falling into terrorist hands was a significant concern. The intelligence suggesting Iraq's threat was shared among international allies, not solely the UK, pointing to a collective concern rather than unilateral fabrication.
The key documents, the "September Dossier" and the "Iraq Dossier," were compilations of intelligence from various sources. Criticisms of these documents for inflating the threat were addressed in inquiries like the Butler Review, which identified flaws in intelligence handling but did not find evidence of deliberate manipulation by Blair or Campbell. Instead, these inquiries highlighted systemic issues in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Their belief in the threat posed by Iraq, based on the intelligence they were provided, underscores a response to perceived global security risks, not an intention to deceive. The absence of found WMDs reflects the inherent uncertainties and challenges in intelligence work rather than a calculated lie.
They relied on the intelligence at the time, highlighted the WMD threat, but their rationale also included the need for regime change due to Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and threat to regional stability. The post-9/11 global security landscape, emphasising the prevention of terrorism, influenced their decision, highlighting the potential for Iraq to support terrorist activities.
Furthermore, the UK sought to enforce United Nations resolutions that Iraq was violating by not cooperating with WMD inspections, aiming to maintain the UN's credibility. The strategic and political alliance with the United States also played a crucial role, as supporting the US in Iraq was seen as key to reinforcing the transatlantic relationship vital for UK foreign policy. The concept of preventive war, acting to remove a threat before it materialises, was another factor underpinning the decision to join the invasion.
This multi-faceted approach shows the decision was not made lightly or based on a single issue. Instead, it was the result of weighing various serious and interconnected global concerns, demonstrating a broader context beyond the accusation of lying about WMDs.