Lord Swansea: “Many critics of war do not want a sober analysis; they want an apology and the heads of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell on a platter.”
Comment at end
29th June, 2009
In the House of Lords just after Gordon Brown had announced the Iraq Inquiry, there was a debate on the inquiry and, inevitably on the issues around the Iraq conflict. This was six days prior to the more highly publicised House of Commons debate.
This Hansard report of the contribution of Lord Anderson of Swansea says what many believe: that the whole inquiry is probably not worthwhile, albeit they conclude that for different reasons.
I do not know Lord Swansea or his opinions on the Iraq war, but I share his scepticism.
18 Jun 2009 : Column 1236
3.02 pm
Lord Anderson of Swansea: ”My Lords, I strike a note of scepticism and discord. I recognise that the Government are honouring an obligation and have to proceed, but I am profoundly unconvinced that the exercise will be worthwhile. It is something of a pipe dream to believe that the inquiry as planned, or any inquiry, will lead to closure. I cite in evidence the letter page of the Guardianyesterday, where so many people have already made up their minds and their responses are already predictable. I recall that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, was appointed there were paeans of praise about a man wholly incorruptible and fearless, and yet when his report was published and it was considered to be not the one people wanted, it was called a whitewash. Many critics of war do not want a sober analysis; they want an apology andthe heads of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell on a platter.”
And yes, in case you wondered, the black border IS getting bigger every time I use this picture. The way things are going in the press reporting in the run-up to the Iraq Inquiry there may soon be no picture, just blackness.
Excerpt from George Galloway’s contribution to the House of Commons Iraq debate:
”Some of us say, to reverse Talleyrand, that this was worse than a blunder; it was a crime. If the inquiry is to mean anything, it will need to be able not only to apportion blame but, if blame is apportioned, to signal what legal avenues should be pursued. I know that we do not like that sort of thing in this country—things are usually swept under the carpet and finessed—but this is new territory. Events such as the expenses scandal have left the country seeing our House with such odium, and this country’s political class so naked, that the old ways will not do. If the inquiry finds people guilty of misleading Parliament, the Queen, the armed forces and the public, they will have to be held accountable. There will have to be a trial, which will have to be held under oath, and that will lead to punishment if there are convictions at the end—nothing less will do.”
NOTE Galloway’s line of thought, RIGHT NOW, not just after the Inquiry:
“if the inquiry is to mean anything … blame … legal avenues signalled … if people are found guilty (NOTE - TRIAL language) -they will have to be held accountable … a trial … under oath … punishment if convictions.”
RELATED Blair ‘TRIAL’ posts
Tags: Baroness Crosby, critics of Iraq war, Hansard 18 June 2009, heads of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell on a platter, House of Commons, House of Lords, Lord Swansea, Shirley Williams, Trial of Tony Blair
