Via Middle East Eye “Why we should go to war” ran the headline of a Guardian article in February 2003 by the commentator Julie Burchill. In it, she explained to the Guardian’s liberal readers why a pro-war attitude in the run-up to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq should be welcomed.  “If you really think it’s better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you’re really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise,” wrote Burchill. Another article published in April 2003, after the invasion started, criticised anti-war “doomsters”, claiming “the people of Iraq have been unchained from appalling torture and tyranny” as a result of US-UK action. Despite claims of the BBC’s anti-war bias from Downing Street, academic analysis proved that it was in fact more reliant on government and military sources than other sources. It was also the least likely to quote sources of Iraqi or independent origin, such as the Red Cross, which might contradict official narratives that underplayed …