More Chilcot

Good stuff from Nick Cohen on the Chilcot Inquiry:

The inability to accept that a policy they honestly opposed still had moral virtues is producing levels of dementia unusually high even by the standards of British public life.

Last week, the media convinced themselves that Campbell made an astonishing admission to the Chilcott inquiry when he said that Blair had sent Bush notes saying that he would support removing Saddam by force if America could not remove him any other way.

Much of the supposed exclusive had been "revealed" in the Campbell diaries, published as long ago as 2007, but the venerable age of the scoop did not matter because it supported the dominant narrative that Blair was determined to go war come what may. I am sure you can spot the difficulty with the conspiracy theory. Blair was not a dictator and could not commit British troops to battle on a whim. But his opponents are trying to get round it by maintaining that he won the support of the cabinet and Parliament by lying to them.

As someone who approved of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein at the time, and still does, I suppose it's not my place help them out. But the polemicist in me is offended by the gaucheness of their efforts. As a matter of low tactics as much as high principle, they ought to know that you never level an accusation you can't substantiate because you make life too easy for your targets when you do.

And now in today's Sunday Times we have the astonishing revelation that Jack Straw wrote a letter to Tony Blair back in 2002 expressing doubts about Iraq:

The document clearly implies that Blair was already planning for military action even though he continued to insist to the British public for almost another year that no decision had been made.

The letter will be a key piece of evidence at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war when it questions Straw this week.

The same applies here as applied to Alastair Campbell's supposed revelations last week. We know that Tony Blair was keen to get rid of Saddam. We also know that, not being a dictator, he had to secure the support of parliament: which he did. Among his supporters was Jack Straw. Yes, a politician may harbour secret doubts about something, which he communicates to his leader, and then go on to support him publicly. It happens. A lot.

There's even a Times editorial - So why didn't you quit, Mr Straw? - which reheats all the old arguments  - why Saddam? why not Iran or North Korea? - without ever mentioning UN resolutions. Where's Oliver Kamm when you need him? [Update: but see here.]

 

Comments

[Bob-B]

I see 'Chemical Ali' has just been sentenced to death for ordering the gassing of Kurds:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8463955.stm

Clearly he would still be helping to govern Iraq if Ming Campbell, Simon Jenkins, Tariq Ali, etc., etc. had had their way. Maybe they should get together to campaign for a reprieve.

[Mikeovswinton]

"Where's Oliver Kamm"? Isn't he writing for The Times?

[Mick H]

Yes, that's what I meant - he's a Times editorial writer, but I doubt he'd think much of this effort.