More like this
Oh, what a lovely war! Murdoch’s other legacy
Murdoch’s UK papers have cheered the Iraq war and argued strongly for attacking Iran
They've hacked into the voicemail of a murdered teenager and the relatives of dead UK soldiers. They've paid police officers for information. The charge sheet against News International is a long and serious one.
But as shocking as the allegations of illegal news gathering have been, the greatest crime of Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has gone largely unreported. Namely that no other newspaper group has as much blood on its hands when it comes to propagandising for illegal and fraudulent military conflicts.
There hasn't been a war - or potential war - involving Britain in recent years that Murdoch's British titles haven't been gung-ho about.
More than two years before the publication of the government's dodgy dossier on Iraq's non-existent WMD, News International papers were already doing their best to convince the public of the dire threat from Saddam Hussein.
On Christmas Eve 2000, the Sunday Times published a story headlined 'Saddam builds new atom bomb' in which it was claimed that the Iraqi leader "has ordered his scientists to resume work on a programme aimed at making a nuclear bomb".
A couple of months later the same paper ran another piece entitled 'Saddam has tested nuclear weapon' based on the testimony of a mysterious Iraqi whistleblower named 'Leone'.
"Personally, I think the evidence is compelling," wrote the article's author, film-maker Gwynne Roberts.
As war drums were being beaten louder, the pro-war propaganda became ever more outrageous. Just a few days before the war began, the Times ran an article by the pro-war Labour MP Ann Clwyd which claimed that Saddam used a people-shredder to dispose of his enemies. 'See men shredded, then say you don't back war,' was the article's provocative headline.
The Sun meanwhile published a cartoon showing French President Jacques Chirac, who opposed the war, as Saddam Hussein‘s whore.
"The whole civilised world, not just Britain, is disgusted with the way France's president and politicians have behaved over Iraq," the paper declared. "Last month we accused Chirac of behaving like a worm. Today we say to the people of France: We did not go far enough. Your president is not just a worm. He has behaved like a Paris harlot."
In taking this aggressive line, News International editors were only taking the cue from their paymaster Rupert Murdoch, a strong supporter of invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.
"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy... would be $20 a barrel for oil," Murdoch enthused. He also lavished praise on President George Bush for "acting very morally and very correctly" and lauded his fellow warmonger Tony Blair for "being extraordinarily courageous and strong".
It was later was revealed that Murdoch had three conversations with the "extraordinarily courageous and strong" British prime minister in the nine days preceding the war.
Murdoch and his papers got the war they desired and more than one million people died. Despite the absence of Iraqi WMD and people shredders, there was no apology in News International publications for the false information that they had published, which had done so much to boost support for the conflict.
On the contrary, it was time to move on to the next country in the neo-con 'to do' list: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
"I cannot understand those who, like the New York Times, insist on clarity about our intentions or those like Jack Straw who, as foreign secretary, repeatedly said that military action against Iran was inconceivable," bemoaned the Times' influential comment editor and columnist Daniel 'I am a neocon' Finkelstein.
While conceding that an invasion of Iran would be a "stupid idea", and that military strikes should be "a last resort", Finkelstein nevertheless argued: "There is a much stronger case for military strikes against nuclear installations. Naturally, the Iranians would be enraged and there would be massive international condemnation."
On New Year's Day 2010, the Times started the year as it meant to continue, running a belligerent piece on Iran by the then shadow defence secretary Liam Fox, entitled 'The world must neutralise Tehran's toxic threat'.
Just in case there were any readers still not convinced of the Terrible Toxic Threat that Iran posed, the paper also proclaimed, in December 2009, a dramatic exclusive - that it had obtained "confidential intelligence documents" which it claimed showed that Iran was "working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb".
The "confidential intelligence documents" were, needless to say, revealed to be forgeries.
Despite the relentless campaign against Iran waged by the Murdoch empire, there have, thankfully, been no military strikes as yet against the Islamic Republic.
But there has been a new war - this time against Libya, another Muslim country, and once again the Times and its stable-mates have been bellicose cheerleaders.
Of course, other British newspapers have played their part in warmongering - the Telegraph newspapers, then under the proprietorship of Conrad Black (now in jail for fraud) and his neocon wife Barbara Amiel, deserve a special mention for their hawkishness in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But the News International group stands out for the intensity of its focus.
The 4,000 or so suspected victims of News International phone hacking will eventually receive some form of redress. But there will be no compensation for the relatives of those who lost loved ones died in the illegal military conflicts Rupert Murdoch's UK newspapers so enthusiastically endorsed. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
In denouncing News International newspapers for "propagandising for fraudulent and illegal military conflicts", Neil Clark doesn't merely express an opinion: he advances specific claims on issues of fact. In doing so, he misrepresents the views of Times columnists and fails to provide supporting evidence. One assertion in particular falsely impugns the integrity and competence of Times journalists.
In December 2009 The Times published documents obtained from Iran's nuclear programme. These revealed a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator (the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion). Of this material, Clark says: "The 'confidential intelligence documents' were, needless to say, revealed to be forgeries."
Clark gives no other information about the documents and cites no evidence. That is unsurprising because his claims have the support of no competent authority in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. The Times's story, by contrast, cited Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, who said: "This is a very strong indicator of weapons work." Philip Crowley, the US State Department spokesman, called the report "a fine piece of journalism".
Clark does not say who has "revealed" these documents as forgeries, but I can identify his source with a very high degree of probability: a website called Antiwar.com, and three of its contributors in particular.
One of these writers is Justin Raimondo, a polemicist who regrets that Imperial Japan did not defeat the US in 1945 .
The second is Philip Giraldi, former foreign policy adviser to Congressman Ron Paul. He is the author of such sentiments as (in a letter to the University of Chicago magazine ): "Can anyone deny that most invocations of the Holocaust are cynical and bogus? The Holocaust promoters understand that if you keep saying the same thing over and over again everyone will eventually believe it; i.e., that the Holocaust is the greatest evil in history and justifies special breaks not only for its survivors, but also for their descendants and co-religionists."
Unsurprisingly, the magazine apologised for having published that letter, which, as the editors acknowledged, promoted "negative and hurtful stereotypes".
The third writer is Gareth Porter, who in 1976 co-authored a book entitled Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution - without apparently ever having visited Cambodia. In it, Porter denied that the Pol Pot regime was systematically slaughtering Cambodia's people. When he made the same claim before a US congressional hearing in May 1977, Congressman Stephen Solarz (D, NY) incredulously but fairly compared Porter to a notorious Holocaust denier (the exchange begins on page 35 of the Congressional record of those hearings ).
These writers from the Antiwar.com site are, I believe, the only possible source for Clark's claim. In my opinion, he was at fault in failing to disclose this. I'm now providing the readers and editors of The First Post with that missing and material information, so they can judge the reliability of Clarkâ??s account.
Lest we forget, the Afghanistan fiasco, the bombing of civilian targets in Serbia, and the Iraq War were all the decisions of Tony Blair - who adoringly accepted Murdoch's praise. When are we going to see the REAL crooks like Blair behind bars? Never, of course, because in Britain the real SCUM always get away with it.
Murdoch is an extreme Zionist and his support for these wars makes total sense. Similarly his grip over UK politicians to execute the Zionists policies is incredible. We should not be so surprised about this new other than to think why did all this NI hacking and these revelations were not dealt with earlier. Anyway, don't hold your breath, his fightback will be brutal; he has lost round one but the Zionists will probably win the fight with or without Murdoch.
That is most unfair. Wars are excellent for selling newspapers and make great armchair television which is the lifeblood of Mr. Murdoch's businesses. Its a fair bet that the circulation and advertising managers can quantify the revenue potential of any war. Even though I have it from free and legitimate sources that Lord Conrad Black's vacated cell is being redecorated, I do not have a handle on the persistent optimism and confidence of Mr. Murdoch. With his problems and age he ought to be buying pampers for incontinence. Instead he looks ready for a new redhead. The pity is that we may never find out if he leaves the country a free man. For the amount of confidence that he shows, it has to be information of significant national importance.
Excellent article. Murdoch is a boor and a war monger. The sooner that his empire collapses the better.
Why Libya? Did Cameron take his orders from Murdoch?
This is ridiculous. Actually blaming newspapers for the Iraq war. Is Neil Clark trying to say that the papers formed the speech given by Colin Powell in the UN that there were WMD's in Iraq? Or that President Bush relied on Murdoch to go to war. More likely He used Murdoch. Is Murdoch to blame for Tony Blair deciding to Join the US in that war? Does he think that Iran is a sweet gentle little country being defamed by the Murdoch press so that the US will attack that country. So its the Murdoch press, not the intelligence organizations of countless countries revealing the danger to the world of the Mullahs of Iran. Even Al Jazeera is screaming about it. Neil, you are being disengenious if not downright misleading in your claims
I thought it was the Labour government that lied about WMD and was primarily responsible ( along with all those who were members of the Labour party at the time ).