Morning:
8°c
Alastair Campbell, the man who helped burnish New Labour's public image, is doing more than anyone else alive to discredit it. Sitting through his evasive and unrepentant rants yesterday, a feeling of weary revulsion crept up on me.
I say that as someone who supported the war and still defends the decision to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The pro-war case has it tough enough without the added liability of Mr Campbell.
To the lengthy arguments about whether Mr Blair supported regime change and told George Bush as much in advance, I register a vast lack of surprise. Regime change was the best reason to rid Iraq of its destabilising henchman leader. It does not seem to me a hanging offence for Mr Blair to indicate that he would support the US in removing Saddam if he did not disarm.
What Mr Campbell and his Number 10 allies did, however, was shift the argument, because they concluded that this case was unlikely to convince the wider public.
That is the big wrong he cannot admit. It explains almost everything about the lamentable performance yesterday. The stubborn arrogance on display was like all the worst bits of the Blair years in one performance: laddish, cocky and evasive.
I do not believe that either he or Mr Blair knew that Saddam had already discarded his chemical weapons stocks. The sheer crestfallen disbelief I witnessed among ministers and in the intelligence community when they failed to materialise speaks against that theory.
Yet it becomes clearer with every investigation that Mr Campbell presided over deliberate exaggerations in the WMD dossier. Asked if the phrase “beyond doubt” should have been used when, as Lord Butler's earlier inquiry had concluded, the actual evidence was “limited, sporadic and patchy”, he denied that this meant that Parliament had been misled.
If this is not misleading, then what is? Something is either beyond doubt, or it is not. If there is a grey area, then it is in doubt and that should be acknowledged. The executive summary of “headlines” from the dossier was crafted under the communication chief's instructions, to play down any doubt at all.
Opponents or believers in the war, he set out to make fools of us all.
This was the day the Chilcot inquiry, which has been a bit herbivorous so far, finally discovered an appetite for red meat.
The academic Lawrence Freedman repeatedly asked about the changed timeline of the dodgiest bit of the dossier: the claim that Saddam's weapons could be fired on UK targets in Cyprus in 45 minutes.
All the evidence has shown this was deployed to provide maximum media impact, though it contained at least one inaccuracy which was not corrected at the time.
Mr Campbell alone stands by it: “I cannot see it any other way.” Of course he cannot. Either he is in complete denial, or he has more cynically decided that it is better to stick to a “No surrender” position and tough it out.
All politicians and aides should beware the mindset to which he has succumbed. If something was part of a procedure set up to enhance Government's ability to get its case across, it must therefore be right. Andy Coulson, beware it does not happen to you over in camp Cameron. It is catching.
One thing Mr Campbell has done this week is raise the stakes severely for his old boss. Mr Blair has already turned in one spectacularly bad performance in his single domestic interview about the inquiry. A former adviser sighs that “Tony has been out of the national debate for too long” and admits that he “misjudged the language and approach” in his bullish sofa interview with Fern Britton.
People of my views will have more understanding than most for his insistence that his decision to go to war was justified. But on two major counts — the over-selling of the case on WMD and the abysmal management of the aftermath — huge failures do need to be acknowledged and the continuing failure to do so is toxic. It has sown distrust of politicians and the reliability of the Government's word in the most serious matters a country can face.
Watch carefully the upcoming evidence of the Number 10 ex-chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. Once he was as gung-ho as the rest of Camp Blair but my impression now is that he might well give more nuanced evidence about the handling of the conflict. We can only hope somebody does.
Some tensions about the rights and wrongs of the war will never be resolved. The Dutch ruling on the undertaking will please those who want military adventures they don't like rendered simply “illegal”. That conveniently rules out the need for further debate or nuance.
But international law is too pliant and unreliable a tool to be the last resort. Also, with due respect to the key witnesses, Philippe Sands and Hans Blix, one is a lawyer whose antipathy to the war is well noted, the other was angered by President Bush's determination to truncate his weapons search.
Other senior inspectors, like David Kay took a different view. He thought that the cat and mouse game with Saddam had run its course — and had no doubts about Saddam's continuing intentions to acquire more weapons outside international agreements.
In the end, responsibility lies not with the lawyers trading precedents, exceptions and interpretations. It lies with leaders. That is a heavy burden, as I'm sure Mr Blair knows now. It isn't one that can simply be shaken off with the kind of breezy nonchalance we saw at the inquiry yesterday.
Mr Campbell averred that Britain should stop “beating itself up” about Iraq. An unsparing scourge of the weaknesses of others, he is strangely gentle with himself.
He could think of nothing that was badly done in the run-up to the war. How glib and self-forgiving and utterly thoughtless. Only he cannot see it.
Reader views (28)
Nigel London yours is the best contribution to this debate I have ever read. Concise, accurate and to the point. I wish I had said that!
- Aardvark11, loughborough england, 14/01/2010 20:18
Report abuse
The shocking thing about this week at Chilcott was not the pitiful performance of Campbell, but the revelation by the then Cabinet Secretary that there had been no strategic analysis or review of the geopolitics of the region. Where were the Arabists who used to dominate the FO - left in the dark presumably? The Blair interview, if Chilcott and co. get their act together, will be unmissable.
- Ianc, Templecombe UK, 14/01/2010 17:15
Report abuse
Campbell totally failed to explain away the lies that changed the reports on WMD from 'sketchy and uncertain', to Blair's 'totally beyond any doubt'. Those were plainly lies and deception. His bluster and evasion were shaming.
All can see the plain, simple nasty lies. It is the simplest of takeyya, to lie and deceive to get your way. In this case Blair, Campbell, Brown did not trust the UK to accept a decision already made by Bliar to go to war. Blair wanted to copy Thatcher. But she fought a just war to free the Falklands from an invader. Bliar lied to the UK to convince people they were threatened by Saddam.
Campbell puts Brown at the heart of all Iraq discussions. He saw the original reports and said nothing as Blair deceived the UK with his lies.
Who else saw the original reports and then said agreed with the changed lying versions?
What are the sanctions against people who use deceptions and lies to deceive the UK Parliament and public?
- Poll, manchester uk, 14/01/2010 10:09
Report abuse
Doug Korthof - "While Saddam was a deplorable monster, he maintained a secular dictatorship that opposed nutcase Islamic extremists and allowed women some freedom. The evils loosed on the supine people of Iraq by the Bush-Blair catastrophe are far more deleterious than any version of Saddam's rule" ???
You call women being dragged in off the streets to be raped and murdered by the Saddam boys, just because they could, "allowing women freedom"? Do you call wide spread chemical warfare against your own people acceptable? Do you call arbitrary 'justice' and people simply disappearing in the night, only to be found in mass graves years later far LESS deleterious than "The evils loosed on the supine people of Iraq by the Bush-Blair catastrophe"?
What an odd fellow you must be. Heads up - the worlds current problems started long before the Iraq wars. They were simply a part of the time-line.
Ultimately, I believe the war was not wrong, but the governance and rehabilitation of the country should have been left to the local nations once the job was done in my admittedly unqualified opinion. But we'll never know if that would have worked - what's done is done. Now the world has to deal with what is, rather than complaining about whatever political perspective they happen to hold from the past.
- Rogan, Irving, 13/01/2010 18:32
Report abuse
Peoples lifes in bits because of a weak man who did not have the guts to say no to Bush when the whole country knew the war was unjust.Campbell, Brown,Presscot and the greedy money grabbing Blair should hang thier heads in shame when the brave lads come home as they are not fit to look them in the eyes.
- K Waite, leeds, 13/01/2010 17:26
Report abuse
Let me make it as simple as I can for those people who STILL believe it was right to invade Iraq based on LIES, what sacrifices did YOU make to get rid of SH? Did YOU go and fight? Have you EVER been to the hospitals to see our injured soldiers??? Did you EVER speak to a family who lost a soldier??? Have you donated even a single penny towards our maimed soldiers??? NO??? WHY NOT HYPOCRITE???
N Korea: nuclear weapons, YES. Bad regime, yes. Oil, no.
Zimbabwe: nuclear weapons, no. Bad regime, yes. Oil, no.
Iraq: nuclear weapons, no. Bad regime, yes. Oil, YES.
And for those naive people who think there's a difference between telling a white lie, and a black lie, that's about as logical as stating a white car is different to a black car, while missing the salient point that they are both CARS. And that telling lies has consequences, often it might seem too abstract to notice this, but as in the LIES regarding Iraqi WMDs, the consequences can be costly, long lasting and deadly.
- Ralph, London, 13/01/2010 17:26
Report abuse
Mr.Blair managed to devalue the office of Prime Minister more than any other holder. Callaghan, Ramsey and Eden all did things that damaged the country but at least did the right thing for the country in the end. Blair on the other hand mislead the country again to get re-elected and then force a fait-accompli upon us.
- Mark, London, 13/01/2010 17:03
Report abuse
Did anyone really expect Alastair Campbell to give a bad performance? He wrote the script and learnt it word perfect.
- Douglas, Bristol, 13/01/2010 16:33
Report abuse
It is oft forgotten that Bliar told parliament that if Saddam gave up his WMD that he and his sons could continue in power.
I do hope the Chilcott team will ask him about how these words at the dispatch box fit in with his regime change ambitions
Of course I forgot - it was just another lie!!!!!
- Ian C. L, Bangor UK, 13/01/2010 15:36
Report abuse
The true cost of this shameful episode is that it has further diminished people's trust in politicians, and this might put the country's future in peril.
I was one of the many who believed that no government would ever mislead parliament and its people over such a matter of life and death as going to war. I believed them when they said that they had detailed intelligence which could not be published. I was wrong. They lied to get the country into a war. The price was measured in blood.
Next time I and millions others will be far less trusting, but that has its own dangers. It might delay a government from going into a truly necessary war, or it might force the publication of intelligence of benefit to the enemy.
Remember the dead and remember the lies when you cast your vote at the next election.
- Nigel, London, 13/01/2010 15:23
Report abuse
The Great British public are being reminded of the foul mouthed manipulative, arrogant and deceitful Campbell at just the right time. How many more nails can one get in Nulabours coffin? Roll on the nail shortage or a bigger coffin. A chapter of history is about to close with a thump. Goodbye Nulabour and all who sailed with it.
- David S., Burgess Hill UK, 13/01/2010 15:21
Report abuse
Bad guy (Saddam) is gone. Democratic govt inplace that is not a threat to it's neighbours. The excuse was good enough. The end justifies the means.
Iran next, and if the govt need to do teh smae because it can't get bleeding heart liberals on it's side, then so be it.
- Mek, London, 13/01/2010 13:41
Report abuse
It is rare that I agree with an article word for word. But I agree with Anne McElvoy on the original need to remove Saddam and the dishonest way that the government presented it in order to obtain public agreement. The way in which the words "beyond doubt" were used was crimially negligent in my view. I would bet that a majority of the nation felt the 45 minute claim was THE most important factor in their assessment of the justification for war.
The subjective morality evident in presenting the government's case is something that suerly no reasonable citizen will ever wish to experience again. The lack of planning for the aftermath has demonstrated that a military war can be won and then the peace lost when a power vacuum is allowed.
The fact is that many of the problems since encountered would have been avoidable had proper consideration been given. That is not the wisdom of hindsight, it is there for anyone to discover in history. As Santayana said: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
How many times do we have to make the same mistakes before we start to learn?
- Steve Buckel, Braunau-am-Inn, 13/01/2010 13:11
Report abuse
There are a number of questions still to be answered, not only by Blair, Campbell, Hoon, Reid, Brown et al. They should be taken to a war crimes court and when found guilty, removed from society for a long time.
The people of the United Kingdom will never forgive them for destroying the credibility of the UK and lying by taking us into the Iraq War and causing so much death and destruction.
They have yet to also answer questions related to the untimely death of the distinguished Dr David Kelly.
- P S B, Gr Uk, 13/01/2010 12:37
Report abuse
Anne McElvoy, if you supported the war and still "defend the decision to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein" then you are an advocate of war crimes. A war for regime change is an illegal war, the "supreme international crime."
Of course we all now know that the invaders knew there were no WMD before they invaded. But they invaded anyway.
You can defend this aggressive war against the people of Iraq and the ensuing death that followed, but please don't then complain when the "terrorists" take issue and attack Britain in response. If Britain can't follow the rules why should anyone else?
- Christiaan, London, 13/01/2010 12:34
Report abuse
Just keeps reminding us why LIEBOUR needs to get booted into oblivion come General Election. Hope Bliar and Clown act like Campbell.
- Ronreagan, aberdeen, 13/01/2010 12:20
Report abuse
The words "New Labours Ethical Foreign Policy" have a hollow & ghastly ring to them after 12 years of carnage & misguided foreign escapades.
How does Mr Campbell sleep at night?
- Ian, England, 13/01/2010 12:17
Report abuse
In 20 years time we will look back at all this and realise it was the start of the Holy War or World War 3, the worst of all wars.
- Jon, UK, 13/01/2010 12:14
Report abuse
Err Doug Korthof - you've got it exactly the wrong way round. The oil companies aren't paying Iraq $1 and then keeping the remaining $80 for themselves. Iraq is paying the oil companies cost + $1.15-1.40 to extract the oil, and the remaining $80 is kept by the Iraqis. Yet the oil companies are expected to invest $bns into somewhere as unstable as Iraq, to achieve this paltry return. It's a really bad deal for the internation oil companies, it's a great deal for the people of Iraq.
- Sid, London, 13/01/2010 12:10
Report abuse
The first sentence was enough to convince me that this article was brilliant - well said and well put!
- Abbas, Wembley, UK, 13/01/2010 12:09
Report abuse
Why are people moaning, you have no rights if you are part of this "society" you are nothing but moaning children, complicit by the fact your tax pounds go towards helping genocide, illeagal wars, and the murder of inocent, children, mothers and fathers,
get up and do somthing about it. claim your sovereign self!
anyone planning on voting is a MUG! democracy doesn't exist when you can only choose between two or three of the same thing.
- Tom, Nottingham, 13/01/2010 12:06
Report abuse
Look no further than the man himself Mr Blair, sees himself as a great leader and truly believes he shares a place in history along side of Thather and Churhill He saw this as an oportunity to make Iraq the means to guarantee his place in history, his legacy.He is a liar posessed with his own self importance. The Blairs are motivated only by thier greed and desire for fame and fortune.Unfortunatly thousands of innocent people have died as a result of this mans ego
- Peter Rivers, Bournemouth, England., 13/01/2010 12:06
Report abuse
I suspect the only outcome of this enquiry will be a simple illustration that a PM can lie and get away with anything.
- Tris, Brighton, 13/01/2010 12:04
Report abuse
Campbell is nothing more than a manipulator, a spin merchant, a creature who's job it was to help the Prime Minister con his way through office. His ruthless aggression towards the press and the general public, and his ability to lie through his teeth with absolute conviction make him one of the most unpleasant people we've ever had in a position of power in this country. The fact that he now continues to snarl and sneer like some regency Baron who seems to believe he is infallible makes one feel nauseated at the mere mention of his loathsome name. He clearly believes he is superior in every way and above reproach. Oh really?!
- John, United Kingdom, 13/01/2010 11:55
Report abuse
While Saddam was a deplorable monster, he maintained a secular dictatorship that opposed nutcase Islamic extremists and allowed women some freedom. The evils loosed on the supine people of Iraq by the Bush-Blair catastrophe are far more deleterious than any version of Saddam's rule. The plain fact is, Iraq sits on more oil than Russia, perhaps more than Saudi itself (no one has fully explored their oil fields).
The real issue was who controls that oil, western oil companies like Chevron and BP or the nation of Iraq.
Now, we see the result, as western oil companies bid a dollar a barrel in royalties -- all then need to pay -- to steal the Iraqi oil and use it to manipulate the world oil price higher than it should be.
Everyone knows there is no shortage of oil -- no waiting at the pumps; the price is NOT demand driven, it's manipulated by those who control the wells. And due to Bush-Blair's illegal war, they control it all -- except perhaps for Venezuela, which plays ball enough not to disrupt their price setting.
Why is no one saying this obvious fact?? Oil is not a free market, it's a "managed market", one where those who control the wells set the price to what they think they would like to earn -- or what the market will bear. What the suckers hooked on oil will pay, without looking for alternatives.
Bush's family got its start working for Rockefeller in Ohio; no surprise he still pimped for Big Oil. How easily he pimped-out poor tony.
- Doug Korthof, Seal Beach, CA, 13/01/2010 11:44
Report abuse
@Jules...
Troops are issued NBC suits as part of their 1157 Kit Issue List (Along with socks, gloves and such like)
They aren't issued Noddy suits 'just in case' the baddies have Chemical weapons.
- Ray Hewitt, Bracknell England, 13/01/2010 11:43
Report abuse
how many more of tony blair's merry men are going to shoot themselves in the foot over the ill- conceived and unnecessary iraq war and is there a fair chance that he - his sidekicks and bush will ever be brought to trial for war crimes.
somehow I and many people of my generation who came through ww2 feel that there is going to be a massive whitewash.- which brings to the point on the necessity of this present conflict in afghanistan - is this ever going to be resolved or are we going to lose a generation of young men and women - especially men as we did in the first world war.
- Mrs. Jean Blackledge, greenfield. holywell flintshire [ clwyd], 13/01/2010 11:30
Report abuse
There's one way of knowing if they were expecting to be faced with WMDs - how many chemical protection suits were issued to the troops at the start of the invasion? If there were insufficient to equip the troops you have your answer.
- Jules, haywards heath, uk, 13/01/2010 11:12
Report abuse
