I WRITE to take issue with Fred Shawcross and the angry man's latest rant against the world (Friday, December 30).

After an article of unremitting anti-Blair prejudice, he has the gall to inform us that truth is the most notable casualty of war. Well, his article illustrates it perfectly.

To take just his opening gambit in which he says that newsreels showing Blair's visit to Iraq spoilt his Christmas.

To our political analyst Fred, it was nothing but "blatant political posturing" and an "ideal photo opportunity".

To anyone other than Fred, it is obvious that a Prime Minister would visit his troops for many reasons: to show the troops that they have political support at the highest level; to get the facts from those at the front line; and to get the assessments of the commanders on progress being made, their opinion of Iraqi attitudes, troop morale, and so on.

While I hold no brief for Mr Blair, I'm pretty sure that he, and Mrs Blair, do not lack for photo opportunities, although his going to Iraq was news and would be photographed.

My recollection of the TV news report is that it was pretty low key. I also recall, when asked by reporters about a possible pull-out date, he said the Army commanders were better informed to answer this - not quite how Fred put it.

But it was an opportunity for Fred to have a go at Blair. If the PM had not gone to Iraq, it could have given Fred the opportunity to write an article about Blair cowering cravenly in his Downing Street bunker while the brave lads faced the Iraqi insurgents.

Truth didn't get much of a look-in in Fred's article. It used the method of the tabloid journalist - always find, and preferably invent, a base motive and spin it.

Norman Peacock

Bradshaw Meadows

Bolton