The British state often uses public inquies to defuse crism, head
off attack or as a last line of defence. Lord Justice Hutton's inquiry has aspects of all three; it has been given a very narrow remit, which avoids the key question of whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and whether there was ever any justification for war. Nevertheless, the whole affair has gone too far to prevent the obvious conclusion being drawn by just about everybody - the case for war was a complete
In addition the Blairites can't stop millions of people glimpsing their amazing arrogance - the hubris of a team now completely cut off from the labour movement and despised by every section of progressive public opinion. It is extraordinary how Blair seems to think that merely repeating that he did indeed believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he was really sincere, and he still believes it, amounts to a serious
The resignation of Alistair Campbell, allegedly long planned, but in reality hastened by the Kelly affair, is a defeat for a central assumption of Blairite politics - that public opinion is dumb and you can get away with anything if you 'manage' the
This government crisis would not have happened without mass opposition to war in Britain, which is why a panicked government was scratching about to find 'intelligence' evidence to justify war in the first place. Blair's team did not expect such vast opposition and a giant anti-war movement, because they discounted the left as a serious force, and assumed that social and political attitudes had moved as far right as they have. On both counts they were wrong.
Whatever the precise findings of the inquiry Blair, Campbell and defence minister Geoff Hoon have been found guilty in the court of public opinion, both over the war itself and over the death of defence ministry weapons expert David Kelly.
Kelly either committed suicide or was assassinated. Either way the government is responsible. Evidence from colleagues and journalists shows that he was deeply sceptiHenchman: Campbell. Victim: Kelly: cal all along about the government's claims on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
Kelly was not some middle ranking official, but the MoD's top expert on WMDs. He felt very bad about Iraqi contacts with whom he worked on the WMD issue, feeling the British government was betraying their trust, and even putting them in physical danger in the event of war.
In addition, when the government effectively named him, he came under extreme Publishing distorted extracts from a 10-year old PhD thesis as a recent intelligence report was an act of systematic lying ... .. pressure from the media frenzy and from being frog-marched before the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. One way or another, he was a victim of the government's cynical manipulation of the truth.
The vast amount of time and effort spent on discussing whether Alistair Campbell personally inserted the claim in the 'dodgy
Fall Guy: Hoon dossier'; that Iraqi WMDs could be deployed in 45-minutes has been largely pointless.
All the government's publicity leading up to war was based on the false premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to its neighbours and the West.
The agonised discussions about how to present the issue of WMDs were merely an inner-bureaucratic debate about the size and shape of the fig leaf to be used to disguise the government's embarrassing lack of substantial assets - ie real facts on WMDs.
Publishing distorted extracts from a 10year-old PhD thesis as a recent intelligence report was an act of systematic lying, irrespective of the inserted claim that WMDs could be deployed within 45 minutes. This claim was added solely to give credence to the idea that Iraq was an 'imminent' danger.
Alistair Campbell launched his attack on the BBC partly because its journalists followed up the question of the dossier, but mainly as a strategy for diverting the heat from the government.
The question of whether the government lied could then be confused and diluted, into the issue of 'did the BBC lie? A 5-year-old child could work out what is really going on with that. It is alleged that the government were furious with the BBC's coverage of the war, i.e. they felt that it was not totally cringingly supportive of Blair and Bush. But in fact, once war started, it was very uncritical of the war effort.
Campbell's attack did succeed, sion at the BBC, with Newsnight science editor Susan Watts disputing the claims of Today reporter Andrew Gilligan about what Kelly had told them. But in fact there was no substantial difference. Gilligan says Kelly told him that Alistair Campbell inserted the 45 minute claim into the dodgy dossier.
Susan Watts says that Kelly told her the Number 10 press office inserted the 45 minute claim, "and I take the Number I0 press office to be synonymous with Alistair Campbell". Bizarrely, Watts now says she was angry with her BBC bosses for using this as evidence for Campbell's responsibility. It is an entirely secondary question of whether Campbell wrote it or just supervised those who did. Susan Watts either is a very bad journalist or has some reactionary agenda of her own.
David Kelly was a pawn the Blair/Campbell strategy of fitting-up the BBC. Basically it involved saying some rogue' element in the Ministry of Defence had given false information to the BBC, which they had then further distorted.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon forced Kelly to appear before the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, with the almost certain knowledge that Kelly would be under great pressure, try to minimise his own role and possibly contradict himself. This would undermine BBC claims about the role of Number 10 in the dodgy dossier.
If Kelly did commit suicide, then it seems reasonable to assume that the immense personal strain he was under as a result of being unmasked played a major role in his death.
The inquiry has revealed bitter government in-fighting, with Geoff Hoon seeking to blame Blair for the whole issue, and Blair forced to accept general responsibility, but avoid specific responsibility for anything. Hoon is probably finished, having refused to accept his designated role as sacrificial lamb.
Meanwhile, Gordon Brown is staying well out of sight and saying nothing about this at all. He is doubtless hoping that it all fatally damages Blair, whom he can replace in a seamless transition. This plan has something going for it, but not much. If Blair is fatally damaged it is not obvious Labour will win the next election.
Self-appointed Brown flank guards Claire Short and Glenda Jackson are touring the TV studios slamming into Blair, in a display of hopeless confusion. The idea that Brown would have played the war any differently to Blair is far-fetched. And the idea that the self-declared prophet of Americanising' British society would represent progress is hilariously sad
A further side-show of cynical manipulation is being demonstrated in the press, with the Murdoch papers fighting the Daily Mail group. Each is operating according to the most important items on their agenda. For the Mail, this is to bring down Labour and get the Tories in. Hence it backs the BBC which will not stop it tomorrow portraying the BBC as a nest of pinko lesbians sending out subliminal Trotskyist messages
I or Rupert Murdoch's papers the key - thing is its normally good relation.
ship with the government, accelerating the process of media de-regulation and damaging the BBC's role as much as possible - to the benefit of Sky television. Hence strong support for the government.
The precise outcome of the inquiry will not finally determine whether Blair is significantly damaged, although if Blair is significantly criticised, it will clearly damage him more
The Hutton Inquiry has to be looked at in context. It is one more episode in the unraveling of the political decision to back Bush and go to war. Once that decision had been taken by Blair, major political damage was a risk.
War was opposed not just by the labour movement and the other usual suspects, but also by huge numbers of young people and inhabitants of 'Middle England. Now more and more evidence of government lies about Iraq is coming into the open.
Low-intensity war in Iraq and the continuing stream of US and British casualties is causing deep disquiet on both sides of the Atlantic about the continuing occupation. As evidence mounts that most Iraqis want foreign powers out, the decision to go to war is facing political "blowback'.
Blair's government is now a by-word for cynicism and manipulation, not just among the left and the chattering classes, but among millions.
For even the most non-political, this is a government which can't fix transport, can't fix the health service, can't fix education and lies through its teeth about war and peace. In that sense, whatever the precise outcome of the inquiry, the whole Kelly affair reinforces a negative impression of a govemment of manipulative seediness and cynicism.
page 3 of the scan
NA REMARKABLY long and hot
British summer, levels of public discontent with Tony Blair's government have been running high, stoked by continual reminders of the consequences of the esistance sockalst reststance September 2003 3 into each Constituency party in a move to rescue the party from the "hijackers".
While the general level of trade union rhetoric criticising New Labour has risen,