RELATED Blair ‘TRIAL’ posts
- Day 1: THE TRIALS, TRIALS & ‘TRIAL’ OF TONY BLAIR
- Day 3: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – “The Independent can report that…”
- Day 4: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – House of Commons Debate on Iraq Inquiry
- Day 5: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – Opioides for Oborne?
- Day 6: The ‘TRIAL’ of Tony Blair – Kelly/13 Doctors/Norman Baker/Bahai Faith
Comment at end
23rd June, 2009
LAYING DOWN THE IRAQ INQUIRY’S TERMS OF REFERENCE – FOR THE PRESS & THEIR BLOG SPROGS
"Dieu et Mon Droit" as used by the monarch and the Royal Courts of Justice. Does this apply too to those under intense inquiry for political decisions, even when not nominally 'on trial'? If 'no', what are the ground rules of protection particularly pre-inquiry?
The point of this series in ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ days is two-fold. Remember that to many if not most this inquiry is ALL about Blair, his Iraq war decisions and their legality or otherwise. I contend we need to lay down ground-rules and FAST, before the aggression rising in the current press and blogging atmosphere gets out of hand.
I see this inquiry as a flawed instrument, but nonetheless I accept that we are stuck with it to try to bring closure. The families of soldiers who died, and who feel, rightly or wrongly, that their relatives died in vain, have understandable and personal concerns. There are NO such excuses/reasons for many other critics of a democratically elected government.
Tony Blair is NOT on trial, yet many of his opponents are behaving as though he were. Except that they are NOT behaving as they would if he ACTUALLY were on trial. All this I discussed at the previous post.
Point one - to insist on and secure the same treatment and protection for Blair PRIOR to AND during the Inquiry he and we would expect and get if he or any of us were in the dock of a court.
Point two - and to aid in point one – to press for by whatever means, legislation, terms of reference, rules of engagement for the press, or some other arrangement (self-censorship does NOT work) for an IMMEDIATE cessation in the press and on blogs, of the kind of opinion that is presently inciting so many, if only, thus far to wordy threats. That kind of freedom to threaten should NEVER be countenanced in this country in the name of “Free Speech”. I do not see why it was allowed to take hold in the first place.
DANGEROUS – HANG IT ALL!
I am not by instinct against free speech; in fact the complete opposite. But that assumes responsibility. Few of the mainstream press and bloggers feel ANY responsibility in their slanderous and inciteful attacks on Tony Blair.
We are turning a dangerously blind eye to the growing band of hangers ‘n’ floggers within the anti-war brigade. I realise that some will say that my drawing attention to this could increase the threats. I reject that. If you have spent any time on the internet in recent years the abuse, ignorant intolerance and threatening behaviour to the former prime minister are quite eye-watering. This should have been stepped on years ago.
Perhaps NOW is the most opportune moment we are ever likely to have.
If this WAS a court case the press would not opine and back up their half-baked opinions by re-gurgitating the arguments. Their spew of others’ thoughts and conclusions will make no difference to the outcome of the Inquiry. The panel, whoever they turn out to be in the end, will understand that their minds must be open. I fully expect Blair and his government at that time to be exonerated by the Inquiry, so this is not a plea for mercy before the “verdict”.
My concern is simpler than that, and more immediate. It is that some of the half-brains whose “thoughts” have even been expressed here a few days ago by an insane commenter will take the press’s views of a “whitewash” if Blair comes out of it smelling of roses. They may feel that they therefore have a ‘duty’ to the rest of us, sanctioned by the press.
In that case they will NOT pursue the panel members, but this man
This edited portrait of Blair was linked from a comment at the Tory Iain Dale's blog: http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/06/blair-pleaded-for-private-iraq-inquiry.html . Interesting link from a Conservative site traducing Blair.
If the press want anything like this on their consciences (consciences? Hah!) let them continue to behave as they are doing.
I am not suggesting that ALL of those who attack Blair’s decisions are as bloodthirsty as some of them think he is. Most want to see him standing in the dock of The Hague and then locked up for life, not dead; modest ambitions really. But it is mainly from the rabid anti-war Left that we hear this kind of call for violent retribution. More astonishingly it also comes from the hypocritical mainstream Right, who in his position would have made the same decisions. You only need to read the comments at the dailies for confirmation of this. Few of these calls are edited out.
The political Right did in fact, lest we forget, support Blair’s Iraq war stance right from the start, as did the country, over 60%. Many honourable Conservatives still support that decision, despite their party’s present oft-times disapproving and frankly opportune and populist words.
MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT
When these people have run out of cud to re-chew and decide to give the “Ah, We ALL KNOW” stuff a rest they use a different tack.
Rachel Cooke displays it to the nth degree in her scurrilous report of her interview with Tony Blair at The Mail. This is equally devastating as regards his chances of fair reporting of the Inquiry as it breeds more suspicions and assumptions about his integrity, character and motivation.
It feeds into the “he’s a weak, sneaky, uncaring, warmongering, lying b*****d” mindset that prevails online and in much of the press. Something that would NOT be permitted with a suspected criminal about to go on trial.
For example, here are a few choice phrases Cooke uses about Blair:
“Utterly unrepentant… a stranger to self-doubt … an unwittingly revealing interview … a symbol of status lost … not of power … Tony Blair, yapping and restless and keen to be loved, just like a toy spaniel … it’s clear that he loathes me … you can almost smell his contempt, even through the highly polished veneer of his charm; it’s like catching a whiff of stale body through very strong aftershave … he is still resolutely uninterested in introspection, regret, nuance … you are also dealing with a robot … he simply doesn’t have the emotional vocabulary. Blair is used to using charm in interviews, I suspect, and when one doesn’t quite submit to it, you can sense a slight irritation on his part. I really can’t tell you what he’s like, or much about what he believes. In this sense, it is more like talking to an actor than a politician. It’s like The Wizard Of Oz, isn’t it? I say. When Dorothy finally finds him, he’s not a wizard; he’s just a little man in a silly coat. There is a split second of startled – horrified? – silence, and then he laughs. Just a little bit too loudly.”
This deep contempt for Blair is written into almost every paragraph this woman writes.
Why? To what effect? Who is she speaking to? Who does she mean to impress? Who to motivate? Where are her manners?
In case you didn’t realise it, The Mail has long practised censorhip. See how they treated a commenter here. Time to censor them? I think so.
To illustrate how a lie can get half-way round the world before the truth can get its boots on, you need only read the sprog blog posts that have shot up from the original Guardian article saying that Blair has pushed/urged/pleaded with Brown to hold the Inquiry in private. If the posts/article doesn’t state the “obvious”, the commenters do.
See list below.
From this Guardian article to Philippe Sand’s (also) Guardian article to the blogosphere no-one takes a balanced line. And their commenters are even more unbalanced. Do they see no cause and effect to this “analysis”?
http://chaosmonster.blogspot.com/2009/06/tony-blair-pushed-gordon-brown-to-hold.html -
Last night, Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, whose party opposed the war from the outset, said: “If this is true about Blair demanding secrecy, it is outrageous that an inquiry into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez is being muzzled to suit the individual needs of the man who took us to war.”
http://ardenforester.blogspot.com/2009/06/tony-blair-fears-being-exposed-in-iraq.html
‘The clamour for a public enquiry has started. Gordon Brown, in his usual gulping way, failed to offer any sincerity in the House of Commons over the need for secrecy. Nick Clegg puts it rather well. “If this is true about Blair demanding secrecy, it is outrageous that an inquiry into the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez is being muzzled to suit the individual needs of the man who took us to war.” If the public mood has anything to do with it, Blair will be giving evidence in public. Then he will have to decide once and for all whether he is a truthful man or an inveterate dissembler. ’
IT IS ONLY NATURAL IF BLAIR IS CONCERNED AT THIS INQUIRY’S OPENNESS
IN THE EYES OF MANY HE IS ALREADY GUILTY. WELL, ISN’T HE?
NOTE: This may all be complete invention on the part of The Observer, as much of it is recycled. If it is invention meant to traduce Tony Blair in the time-honoured fashion, it is no less dangerous.
If it is true that Tony Blair fears that the Inquiry will become a Show Trial, these fears could be well-founded.
As one the papers and bloggers are traducing him, including the usually fair Iain Dale. Dale doesn’t say much – but the headline is enough. His commenter fill in the blanks, including providing the portrait of Blair with added noose, for effect.
Blair Pleaded for Private Iraq Inquiry
Iain Dale 10:23 PM
‘Tomorrow’s Observer has the story that Tony Blair exerted pressure on Gordon Brown to hold the Iraq War Inquiry in private. Wonder why that would be, then.’
[Pic: Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, announcing the Iraq invasion, 20th March, 2003]
Excerpts from the Guardian article:
Tony Blair urged Gordon Brown to hold the independent inquiry into the Iraq war in secret because he feared that he would be subjected to a “show trial” if it were opened to the public, the Observer can reveal.
Blair, who resisted pressure for a full public inquiry while he was prime minister, appears to have taken a deliberate decision not to express his view in person to Brown because he feared it might leak out.
Instead, messages were relayed through others to Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, who conveyed them to the prime minister in the days leading up to last week’s inquiry announcement.
[...]
Blair is believed to have been alarmed by the prospect that he might be asked to give evidence in public and under oath about the use of intelligence and about his numerous private discussions with US President George Bush at which the two leaders laid plans for war.
[...]
A Tory motion that is certain to win wide cross-party backing also calls for the membership of the committee to be widened to include military experts. The Lib Dems are demanding that it also include constitutional and legal experts to assess the legality of the invasion.
[...]
Chilcot will come under pressure from both leaders to open up the inquiry to the public. Clegg will want a guarantee that witnesses such as Blair can be summoned to give evidence under oath, while Cameron will ask if the committee can issue an interim report early next year, ahead of a likely spring election.
The Tories say that, if Brown does not order a U-turn, an incoming Conservative government will “reserve the right” to widen its scope and increase its powers where necessary after an election.
Sir Christopher Meyer, a former ambassador in Washington who is likely to be called to give evidence to the inquiry, yesterday added his voice to calls for a public inquiry. “I think it should also have powers of subpoena and people should give evidence on oath,” he said. “I would be perfectly comfortable with that.”
He said the case for openness was increased because there had been “a ton of stuff” published in the US, both via official inquiries and in memoirs written by key players, that made public what had previously been confidential. “I would be perfectly happy for the whole embassy archive in Washington [to be disclosed]: I haven’t got a problem with that being made available,” he added. “Things were very sensitive then, but this is 2009.”
On his blog, Alastair Campbell, Blair’s former spin doctor, says that, “on balance”, he believes Brown was right to order the inquiry to be held in private. “I can see the arguments for both sides – openness and transparency favours a public inquiry, but it may well be that the inquiry will do a better job freed from the frenzy of 24-hour media.”
In a letter to the Observer, a group of current and former Labour MPs, headed by Alan Simpson, the chairman of Labour Against the War, demands a complete rethink. “Neither the public nor parliament will understand how the prime minister’s ‘new era of openness’ can begin with an Iraq inquiry held behind closed doors,” says the letter.
Let me repeat, in case you are failing to get the message – this is NOT, or is not meant to be the Trial of Tony Blair. Nearly ALL of the articles below use as source the Guardian article by David Hencke, with a few others thrown in for interest.
What else do they have in common? They accept the Hencke line hook line and sinker. Not one offers an alternative analysis. They accept as scripture that Blair presured Brown for a secret Inquiry, and only to serve his own ends and due to his own fears.
These people, bloggers and press, in my humble opinion, know nothing of balance to their readers or of leadership and its responsibilities.
- http://www.labourlist.org/yousuf-hamid-desecration-robin-cook-legacy
- http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/06/europe-and-squalid-blair-cameron-pact.html
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/5588276/Alastair-Campbells-chance-to-become-an-MP.html
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6544284.ece
- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6539560.ece
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027960.html
- Original letter from Gordon Brown to Sir John Chilcot, 17th June 2009 (pdf). It is worth noting that Brown asks this of the Chairman:
“I hope as part of this that you will consider whether it is possible for there to be a process whereby they give their contributions on oath.”
And yet we STILL hear from such “leaders” as Nick Clegg and even from Sir Mike Jackson that witnesses should give their evidence “under oath” as though no-one else had even considered it.
RELATED
