Cameron, News International and Moral Authority

One of the more extraordinary claims I've heard since it was alleged that the News of the World have been hacking the phones of a missing schoolgirl and dead soldiers is that the ongoing scandal in some way robs Cameron of his moral authority. But seriously, folks, what moral authority? Cameron has always had all the moral authority of a slimline soft drink - he's not as bad for you as some of his rivals, but still not good in his own right. He was, and remains, an exercise in political triangulation - the last roll of the dice over half a decade ago by an increasingly desperate Tory party shell-shocked by three successive election defeats.

But if this scandal does destroy Cameron's moral authority, it does equal damage to the already tarnished reputations of his two immediate predecessors in Number 10. Blair and Brown courted Murdoch like the most desperate teenage boy at a teenage disco; they are key to propagating the myth that the backing of Murdoch means the difference between a win and a loss in a General Election. That hasn't, of course, stopped the perennially vengeful Brown sticking the boot in to the Murdoch empire as it continues to struggle. But that's the nature of the Brown and, since he has thankfully been relegated to where he belongs to the dustbin of history, rather tangential to the point. It is difficult to see any of the recent incumbents of No. 10 having any moral authority. And please don't tell me that Miliband Minor wouldn't have dropped his pants at the very first whiff of attention from the Murdoch empire prior to this scandal escalating.

The best way in which Cameron can be differentiated from the others who have sought or inhabited his current address is not down to moral authority but rather his judgement in employing Coulson. Both Brown and Blair employed repellent individuals to do their dirty work on the media for them, but both of those figures were only really discredited during their bosses' tenure at the top. Coulson was clearly damaged goods when Cameron hired him before Call Me Dave ever crossed the threshold at the No. 10. Why hire such a person? Why take the risk of it all blowing up in your face like it has done for young HugAHusky?

But those who believe that this is a resigning issue for Cameron are a mix of hopelessly optimistic and hopelessly naive. Cameron has been in office for just over a year and this is the first real shit that has any hope of sticking to him. This is the equivalent of the Ecclestone affair for one Anthony Blair. Cameron will take a (deserved) kicking for this but when the dust has settled I think it will make fuck all difference. Cameron will go on and this whole affair will probably end up no more than a couple of pages in his no doubt tedious and self-indulgent memoirs (which I very much look forward to not reading).

Cameron leaves this debacle with no moral authority - in other words, much the same way as he was when he went into it. He made a bad and naive judgement call when it came to Andy Coulson - something he definitely won't hang for. I mean, the last PM bankrupted the country so he could look like a jowly, greying version of Superman, and the PM before that dragged us into an unwinnable war just so he could posture next to George W Bush. And this is a classic example of the bar being set so low for Cameron that it is next to impossible for him to do something so comprehensively wrong that he has to resign for it. The sad reality is that this sort of thing is now par for the course for a modern PM, not something out of the ordinary. Even sadder, the man now in Number 10 never had moral authority to lose. This is modern Britain - and modern politics.

I must be missing something...

...because I really can't figure out why this man has been arrested. Listing MPs he claimed voted for the Iraq War can't be a crime - isn't that information publicly anyway? Isn't it on a number of different websites and contained in public documents like Hansard?

I suppose it must be something to do with what he put with the list of MPs because otherwise there's surely no cause to arrest someone for publishing information that is already in the public domain, and has been for over half a decade. The alternative is that we've drifted into being a totalitarian shithole far quicker than I ever anticipated, even in my most cynical moments...

Miliband Minor, Missing The Point

Eddie Miliband, trying to prove that he "gets" us:

And I get that whatever your view on the Iraq War, it led to an appalling loss of trust.

No, Ed, no. If you think the problem about the Iraq War is a lack of trust, then you are seriously missing the point, you dumb piss midget. Nu Labour almost immediately showed it could not be trusted - this was not something that happened in 2003, but was something that was apparent almost as soon as they got into power. No, the problem with the Iraq War is that it is an it was an illegal war that has cost literally thousands of lives and has also made the world a more dangerous place. And if you don't get that, then frankly you're no better than that Anthony Blair...

On the Death of David Kelly

Andrew Gilligan, writing on how he believes Dr David Kelly was not murdered, concludes his article with the following:

I'm often surprised at the enduring interest in this one man's death. If you seek government culpability, the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis would seem, to me, rather more the point. David's was a mainly personal tragedy – and the reason Lord Hutton circumvented the inquest, and sealed the evidence, was not some conspiracy, but because his family wanted it. Among those calling for an inquest, David's widow and daughters have been notable by their absence.

Now, however, I believe that more harm and distress may be being caused by the endless tide of junk speculation than by holding a proper inquest. We should have one, if only to stop the nonsense once and for all.

I find it odd that Gilligan writes that Iraqi deaths are more the point than David Kelly's death. Personally, I think that they are both points in their own right - albeit, points about different things. Iraqi deaths make a point about the horror of an illegal war, the death of Dr David Kelly makes a point about the cruel efficiency of a government determined to pursue a new war against Iraq, and its willingness to brand anyone who might dissent as the enemy.

Kelly's death was a personal tragedy, but it was a personal tragedy with considerable public implications. I can fully understand why the family might not want all information about the death of a loved one broadcast across the country. Yet what Hutton failed to understand is the concerns that many have about the behaviour of a secretive, spin obsessed government towards both David Kelly and the march to war in Iraq. By all means do what the family wants and keep some information secret; where Hutton failed was in his inability to answer or even seemingly address the concerns of those who felt there was something more, something untoward, about the David Kelly tragedy.

Now, I've got no divine insights into the death of David Kelly - personally, I think it is more likely that he committed suicide than he was murdered but since the circumstances surrounding his death is about as clear as mud it is difficult to say anything definite. Which is actually the real point here - the point that Gilligan misses. We should have a proper inquest because we live in a democracy where the actions of our government should be transparent. In this case, the government was anything other than transparent; a sin compounded by the fact that some many people have been calling for a proper inquest. The demands of the people are being ignored...

Basically, a proper inquest isn't - and shouldn't - be about stopping nonsense; it should be about addressing the very genuine concerns people have about how the government treats its people and the fundamental lack of government openness about such crucial issues as life and death in a society which, in rhetoric at least, calls itself free and democratic.

The Criminal Labour Government

Baroness Warsi actually saying something worth hearing:

I'm a lawyer. I can tell you that if an individual had run up debts so irresponsibly they would face legal consequences ...

By running up colossal debts on the nation's credit card, debts so huge that we have been borrowing one pound for every four we spend and increasing our national debt by £3bn a week, what Labour did to British people is frankly criminal.

Baroness Warsi back-tracking on the one thing she's ever managed to say that is actually worth hearing:

I think it was a manner of speech that I was using ... Labour's conduct has been pretty appalling, but frankly I have to say that, as far as I'm aware, it has not been criminal.

Hmmm. I'm prepared to be a little bit more categorical and clear in my thoughts of the Labour party in power: I have to say that I believe the conduct of Labour in its thirteen years in power was criminal. The amount of debt that they've run up leaves them open to the charge of criminal negligence, but it is about more than just the debt. Labour in power consistently tried to pervert the course of justice repeatedly by denying or undermining inquiries into attacks on this country, the death of government employees and the murder by the police of an innocent man on the tube. But above all, Labour dragged us into an illegal war. Thousands of people have died because of what the Labour government did. Quite literally, the Labour party has blood on its hands.

You were right the first time, Warsi. The Labour government from 1997 to 2010 was criminal.

John Prescott on the Iraq War:

The intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat was not "very substantial", former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott has said.

If there's one thing that Prezza would know about, it is not very substantial intelligence - given he himself is thicker than pigshit. And he goes on to prove it yet again, since he casts doubt in the evidence that took us into Iraq at the same time as saying he would do it again. The witless fucking moron.

Alastair Campbell: He's feeling a bit bullied, y'know...

A "tearful" (surely proof of some sort of karma) Alastair Campbell defending the "honourable" (pah!) Tony Blair:

"I've been through a lot on this Andrew. And I've been through a lot of that inquiry... and... Tony Blair, I think, is a totally honourable man."

Hmm. Those who deceive millions of people and then have to go through an inquiry tend to feel like they have been through a lot. Difficult to feel a lot of sympathy for them, though. It's a bit like being expected to pity Richard Nixon for being put through the mill over Watergate - next to impossible to actually achieve.

Oh, and using the word "totally honourable" in connection with Tony Blair without a "not" is basically saying "I am talking total shite."

But the shamelessness of the inspiration for Malcolm Tucker is startling:

Mr Campbell said the media was obsessed with "settling your scores and setting your own agenda".

"You did it again this morning, which is probably why I'm a bit upset, this constant sort of vilification.

"You compared the novel to the dossier, and it's all fiction and all the rest of it. It's not. And I just think the way that this whole issue has developed now where I don't think people are interested in the truth anymore, Andrew."

That's right, we've got Alastair Campbell - who helped to hound a man to his grave - complaining of vilification from others. At the same time as complaining that other people aren't interesting in the truth while discussing his part in constructing a dossier that lead this nation to war on an utterly false premise. I suppose the scope of his ambition could be admired - although I really can't think of any men less likely to achieve the aura of "put-upon truth-seeker" than the ever atrocious moral desert that is Alastair Campbell.

(Failing To) Justify the Iraq War

Thomas Byrne writes an interesting blog, in an intelligent way that is somewhat of a rarity for the blogosphere. Of course, that doesn’t mean that he is right on everything. As this blog post on the Iraq War shows. Let’s take a look:

The idea that the UK went into Iraq to help its people is simply untrue – the war was justified in the UK on the grounds of WMD, i.e. on self-serving grounds. Even if the wars were for completely self-serving grounds, the long-term benefits to the Iraqi and Afghanistani people still remain as a valid argument. I don’t really see the hypocricy. Going to war on self-serving grounds and taking care to ensure the long-term stability of the country aren’t mutually exclusive. It doesn’t follow from the fact that the war was on self-serving grounds that the West have no care about the civilian death toll – thats clearly false.

Y’know, I’m not entirely sure why the UK and US went to war in Iraq. There have been so many different reasons and, well, lies, that I lose sight of what exactly happened. However the West may have cared about the civilian death toll, but their failure to do anything to minimise that death toll through decent planning is probably what has convinced some that they didn’t give a fuck about “collateral damage”.

Saddam’s previous atrocities and the likelihood that they would get repeated nullify any moral arguments against the war, in my opinion – they stop me from having any moral issues about regime change that I would have otherwise had.

Morality is not a question of absolutes, particularly when it comes war. The assertion that there were atrocities under Saddam has to be countered with the atrocities committed after the fall of Saddam, by both the West and others. Even when a war can be framed in broad ideas of good and evil – such as World War Two – there are still acts that are at best morally dubious committed by the “good guys.”

Iraq was clearly a threat to stability in the region – Saddam had already shown a willingness to invade a neighbouring state and a willingness to commit genocide. I don’t doubt that the risk of WMD was exaggurated, but it was nonetheless a risk – even if Saddam didn’t have nuclear capacity, he had a record of using chemical weapons on civilians.

Saddam’s regime was a threat to the stability in the region – as is the Iraq War. This is Morton’s Fork – instability in the region caused by Saddam, or instability caused by the West. There is little that has happened since the Iraq invasion to make the area any more stable. In fact, quite the opposite.

Furthermore, chemical weapons are often defined by experts in the field as weapons of mass destruction – something Saddam arguably made clear by his actions. However, the invasion was justified by talk of Saddam’s nuclear capability – which did not exist. So then we come to intention – given a chance, Saddam would have got his hands on nukes. But he didn’t actually have them, and if we are going to invade countries based on wanting to get nuclear capability, then we’d better gear up for attacks on North Korea and Iran as well. But more on that later.

Obviously civilian deaths because of the invasion are regrettable.

And easier to say that from the safety of the West when your family and friends aren’t the ones dying.

But you have to look at the longer-term picture. Noone can quantify how many civilians Saddam was responsible for killing: Kurds were placed into hidden mass-graves, and noone can really quantiy the death-count resulting from Saddam diverting water away from Shiite areas and razing Shiite farmland. I’m happy to take 2million as an estimate: How many more civilians would have died if Saddam stayed in power? How many would have died under the rule of his sons after Saddam?

How many have died as a result of the war? How many others have been affected or radicalised as the result of the war? We don’t know. But this is another example of Morton’s Fork, isn’t it? Death from peace under Saddam or death from war brought from the West.

How many would die early from being unable to eat properly or drink clean water as a result of Iraq being unable to develop under Saddam?

How many people died when the power went down in the relatively civilised parts of Iraq as a result of the Western invasion? How many people have died as a result of the bombings of crucial infrastructure in Iraq since the war and the horrific sectarian since 2003? Life wasn’t rosy under Saddam, for sure. But it has hardly been a barrel of laughs since he’s gone, either.

These questions are completely speculative, but I don’t think its unreasonable to say that it would be more than that died in the Iran-Iraq war alone.

Which, by definition, is pure speculation.

Iraq now has a real chance to develop into a decent country: it has a proper constitution, an elected government and has a decent crack at developing peace between Iraq’s different people’s.

This doesn’t follow. The fact that Saddam is gone doesn’t guarantee peace between the different people of Iraq. Indeed, many people believe the reason why Iraq was at relative peace for so long was because of Saddam’s draconian rule. Fuck me, I’m not going to defend the gassing of the Marsh Arabs, or the continual attacks on the Kurds – or any of the other crimes carried by Saddam. But one of the many problems with the invasion of Iraq is the failure of the Coalition of the Willing to come up with a plan to reconstruct Iraq after the War. And it failed to come up with a good plan to deal with the inevitable ethnic conflict we see in the country to this day.

Obviously Iraq still suffers from violence and sectarianism, but that was to be expected.

Yes it was, so why was there no plan put in place to deal with it?

We shouldn’t ignore the successes: violence is going down, Iraq has a proper constitution and is now making some attempt to balance the interests of the different sects in Iraq.

Evidence please. And violence probably would go down after the troop surge, wouldn’t it? The actual state of the ethnic conflict in Iraq, and the efficacy of the institutions created to deal with it, won’t become clear until the West has left Iraq. There is, at this moment in time, no reason for particular optimism about the state of play in Iraq.

Iraq has come a long way in the last two years – and it will continue to do so.

Yes, it has come a long way in the last two years – and in the eight years since the war. But then the anarchy caused by the invasion means that any sort of stability is a good thing, and relatively easy to achieve. If you put enough boots on the ground there.

In, in 10 years time Iraq will hopefully be reasonably stable; whereas if Saddam was still there who knows what state it would be in?

Again, speculation. Iraq might be great in 10 years time, it might be a complete disaster area. The only way we will be able to tell is in 10 years time. But let’s hold off celebrating the invasion of Iraq until we know that there is actually a stable system in place.

Those who howl about how America and Britain don’t tackle countries like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are right; do have Human Rights problems. But they have nothing on Saddam – he tortured and erased entire villages (see Dujail massacre), diverted water away from Shiite territory to massage his ego and used chemical weapons on the Kurds.

And what about North Korea? Or Iran? Borderline totalitarian regimes with terrible track records of human rights violations that are given a wide berth by the West because, well, they’d be too much of a problem to take on. Both in the Axis of Evil as well… remember that phrase? It was given as another reason for attacking Iraq. But I digress. The point is that the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of human rights violations sadly doesn’t stand up to close analysis. This world is full of states that violate human rights. We can’t fight them all.

Cooperating with countries who have minor-ish Human Rights issues to remove a bloodthirsty genocidal dictator is an example of the ends justifying the means in my book, or would they rather we achieve nothing at all?

Talking about countries with “minor-ish Human Rights issues” is like talking about someone who has Prostate cancer having “minor-ish cancer issues”. It may be better than lung cancer, but that is purely relative, and of little comfort of you are one of the ones suffering from it. Other countries who might be suffering from “minor-ish” human rights issues are China and Russia – places where an conservative, anti-government blogger like Thomas might have a real problem.

And “would they rather we achieve nothing at all”? Let’s turn the question on its head – what have we achieved? It is not so much that the jury is out on Iraq, but rather that the jury has let to be convened to even begin its deliberations. Yes, few sane people would mourn the demise of Saddam and his terrible regime. But that doesn’t mean that, by default, what has been created in its place is any better than what went before. And even if in ten, or twenty, years’ time Iraq is a stable democracy, then I can guarantee that he poorly planned and poorly executed invasion of Iraq that was based on lies will remain a stain on the reputations of both the UK and US.

Blair: Liar or Moron?

Tony Blair, on Iraq:

Mr Blair said British policy towards Saddam was transformed by the terror attacks on America in September 2001.

He said: "I would fairly describe our policy up to September 11 as doing our best, hoping for the best but with a different calculus of risk assessment."

He added: "The point about those acts in New York is that, had they been able to kill more people than the 3,000, they would have.

"My view was you can't take risks with this issue."

Which, when you think about it, is abject nonsense. Literally. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would the policy towards Saddam change after 9/11? He had nothing to do with that attack. In fact, Osama bin Laden (who probably did have a lot to do with 9/11) famously had very little time for Saddam, and even offered to use his resources to fight Saddam in the first Gulf War. So Saddam had fuck all to do with the terrorist attacks in America in 2001. To state that British policy changed towards Iraq changed because of 9/11 is just stupid; it's like saying British policy towards Northern Ireland changed because of 9/11.

And, bearing in mind there is no link whatsoever between Saddam and 9/11, the fact that the 9/11 attackers would have killed more people if they could is utterly irrelevant. Likewise, to talk of being unable to take risks with this "issue" is freeform nonsense, since there is not just one issue. Iraq is a separate issue to 9/11, in exactly the same way that the government's (cack-handed) response to the foot and mouth crisis was a separate issue to 9/11.

One wonders whether Blair actually believes the bullshit he spouts. If he does, then he is a deluded moron. If he doesn't, then he is a malignant little turd still happy to carry out self-serving deception on a massive scale. Neither alternative provides a particularly edifying picture of the man who used to run this country.

Sir John stressed that Mr Blair was not "on trial".

Shame.

Jack Straw: Wanker

The arrogance of Jack Straw:

"If I had refused (to give my support), the UK's participation in the military action would not have been possible"

Seems a curious time for Jack Straw to start boasting about his importance. After all, had he refused to give his support and saved the UK from the Iraq "adventure", maybe he would actually have something to boast about it. Instead, his importance merely highlights that he helped the Blair government to do ahead and invade Iraq. It's a bit like the defendant at a murder trial trying to win the jury over by saying that he held the victim down whilst someone else stabbed the victim repeatedly in the chest. It isn't as impressive a statement as "I tried to stop the murder from happening." Still, it's a good political epitaph for Jack Straw's career (which hopefully is nearly over): "Jack Straw. Could have stopped the war in Iraq. Didn't. Wanker."

But he is sorry for some of the mistakes made. No, really, he is:

"That was an error, an error that has haunted us ever since."

Ok, ok, maybe he isn't sorry. But he does admit there was an error, and he is "haunted " by it. Of course, he isn't so "haunted" that he can't do a senior government role. And he isn't so "haunted" that he hasn't been able to spend a large proportion of the last seven years decimating civil liberties in this country. Maybe he's just so brave that being haunted doesn't massively impact on his behaviour. Yeah, that's probably it. Jack Straw is brave in the face of having dragged this nation into a war that has killed thousands based on spurious and false data.

So there we have it. Jack Straw; an important man who is brave enough to live with being haunted, but who still manages to be one of the most repulsive politicians in a government that seems to pride itself in having repellent representatives.

"A Bit of Local Colour"

On that 45 minute claim:

"That is my personal explanation of why, as it were, people fell on the 45 minutes - at least that was something the secret service would allow to be used," Sir David said.

"And, with hindsight, one can see that adding a bit of local colour like that is asking for trouble but we didn't really spot that at the time."

Really, what the fuck? A "bit of local colour"? This was part of a report that sent British troops to kill and die in a foreign land. You don't add a "bit of local colour" to a report like that. You try to make it as accurate as possible! Surely, by definition, "intelligence" should at least aspire to be intelligent?

"A little bit of local colour" deserves to become as notorious as Alan Clark's claim to being "economical with the actualité". It simply adds to the sinking feeling I have that the film In The Loop actually wasn't a satire on how we chose to go to war, but rather a documentary.

Don't worry about the truth of any claim being made by the government, people. See, they might just be adding a "bit of local colour" to what they present as facts.

Mourning the Soviet Union

Via Mr Eugenides, I see some total dickhead is asking the sort of question that should be beyond satire:

Would the Bush-Blair partnership have invaded Iraq in 2003 with such brazen impunity if Uncle Stalin, or even Cousin Brezhnev, had been around?

I'd imagine we are supposed to respond with a resounding "no". Unfortunately I can't, for reasons too numerous to relay in detail. So, just a few points here, then:

1. This must be a new definition of impunity, since the Coalition of the Willing have been punished severally, through the loss of troops and international disgrace, whilst Blair's historical reputation has been utterly destroyed by the Iraq "adventure" and Bush left office with the sort of approval ratings that one might expect for Gary Glitter. Sure, no-one has been dragged to the Hague for the Iraq War; but I defy anyone to go to a family who have lost someone in the Iraq War and say that the invasion went ahead with "brazen impunity".

2. Secondly, there are little escapades called the Korean and Vietnam War, as well as a whole host of crazy shit done by the US in South America, that shows even during the Cold War - under Brezhnev as well - the US had no problem with messing with and even invading other nations. And the USSR itself did a little bit of invading... for example, in (wait for it, wait for it!) Afghanistan! The balance between the USA and the USSR did not stop superpowers from invading smaller powers. Their massive nuclear arsenals simply stopped them from having a Third World War against each other.

3. Putin is arguably the strongest leader the USSR has had since Stalin. Yet he couldn't stop the USA and the UK from invading Iraq.

I could go on, but it seems pointless. But just stop for a moment and try this statement out for size. Maybe it would have been best for the Nazi regime to still be in existence, dominating Europe, because they would have stopped the Iraq War. Pretty disgusting statement, eh? Absolutely. Agreed. And not that different from claiming that another brutal dictatorship should be lamented because it too might have stopped the invasion of Iraq.