I see no ships
Jan. 2nd, 2007 01:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
webofevilWith the debate about the existence or otherwise of Saddam’s WMDs raging fiercely on a previous post (until I unintentionally deleted it, in some kind of spasm), I was delighted last night to unearth my copy of the 19 February 2003 edition of the Evening Standard:
The only other paper to run this story was the Telegraph, although it somehow refrained from using the phrase “SHIPS OF TERROR”. It caused a bit of a stir. Suddenly, in the home straight before we finally went to war—with all the people determined to start it busy claiming they weren’t determined to start it—everything seemed to be going a bit Tom Clancy. Iraqi ships packed with illicit WMDs circling the ocean, ready to scuttle at a moment’s notice? Amazing. Maybe Tony and George were right after all. I missed the TV news that evening, but I didn’t mind; I knew a story this big would be in all the papers the next day, if only so it could be denied.
From that day to this, there hasn’t been a single reference to this story in any newspaper. The Telegraph removed it from its archives the day after publication. The occasional puzzled blogger has made reference to it before, and the text of the Standard article occasionally turns up in conspiracy forums, but that’s the extent of it.
What the hell happened? Was the story entirely made up? Were the Standard and the Telegraph sold a pup they were both then too ashamed to acknowledge? Normally such behaviour would at least merit a passing gloat in Private Eye. Were some naval manoeuvres mistaken for suspicious enemy activity? Was there, after all, some suspicious enemy activity that a Ministry thought it best we pretended not to know about, and so slapped a D-Notice on the offending publications? Was it an early April Fool?
Your suggestions are welcome. Let’s see if we can make this journal the premier online resource for wild speculation about the Iraqi “Ships of Terror”.
The only other paper to run this story was the Telegraph, although it somehow refrained from using the phrase “SHIPS OF TERROR”. It caused a bit of a stir. Suddenly, in the home straight before we finally went to war—with all the people determined to start it busy claiming they weren’t determined to start it—everything seemed to be going a bit Tom Clancy. Iraqi ships packed with illicit WMDs circling the ocean, ready to scuttle at a moment’s notice? Amazing. Maybe Tony and George were right after all. I missed the TV news that evening, but I didn’t mind; I knew a story this big would be in all the papers the next day, if only so it could be denied.
From that day to this, there hasn’t been a single reference to this story in any newspaper. The Telegraph removed it from its archives the day after publication. The occasional puzzled blogger has made reference to it before, and the text of the Standard article occasionally turns up in conspiracy forums, but that’s the extent of it.
What the hell happened? Was the story entirely made up? Were the Standard and the Telegraph sold a pup they were both then too ashamed to acknowledge? Normally such behaviour would at least merit a passing gloat in Private Eye. Were some naval manoeuvres mistaken for suspicious enemy activity? Was there, after all, some suspicious enemy activity that a Ministry thought it best we pretended not to know about, and so slapped a D-Notice on the offending publications? Was it an early April Fool?
Your suggestions are welcome. Let’s see if we can make this journal the premier online resource for wild speculation about the Iraqi “Ships of Terror”.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:44 pm (UTC)I'm glad to hear you keep a four-year archive of the Evening Standard.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:51 pm (UTC)I am concerned that you may die in some sort of old-newspaper avalanche. If this happens it will be part of the IRAQI CONSPIRACY.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 05:36 pm (UTC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3358049.stm
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 02:16 pm (UTC)Ooh, Miss Havisham is burning. That's no strange metaphor; Great Expectations is on TV right now.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 02:28 pm (UTC)-x-
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 02:43 pm (UTC)