Blair's WMD deceptions will forever be with him
The phrase “move on” has been very much in vogue in recent weeks. In some instances the term can have a positive connotation, as in to move on after the death of a loved one. In this case it articulates the need to get on with one’s life rather than wallow in the past. However, in the hands of some politicians, the phrase has taken on a negative undertone. When habitual liars like Gerry Adams or Tony Blair urge their opponents to “move on”, you know they’re in trouble. What they’re really saying is: “Please don’t ask me awkward questions any more. Please don’t mention IRA violence / the absence of WMD”. These issues have apparently become “boring”. I suppose it must be boring to tell the same bare-faced lies every day of the week. You can’t blame them for wanting to lie about something else for a change.
Soon after the publication of the Hutton report Downing Street deployed the “move on” excuse on the British public. WMD? That’s SO 2003! It seemed that the spin had succeeded when Iraq dropped off the front pages in February. It was no longer the topic of radio phone-ins in the UK as attention switched to the asylum issue. However this proved to be a false dawn for Blair. Last week WMD came roaring back to centre-stage thanks to the collapse of the court case against Katherine Gunn and revelations from Clare Short that the UK bugged Kofi Annan’s office.
This double-whammy was followed up by a swift one-two over the weekend as speculation grew over the Attorney General’s advice on the legality of war and the Tories withdrew support for the Butler commission. All of a sudden the PM was back on the ropes, forced once again to defend his decision to join Bush’s war of aggression.
It’s perfectly possible that this latest splutter of Iraq-related embarrassment will pass quickly. However any respite for Blair will be short-lived. As long as no WMD are found in Iraq, WMD will be mentioned in British newspapers. Whether he is PM for another month or another decade, it’s reasonable to assume that the war in Iraq will be his central legacy, his “big thing”. It was after all Blair who was chief salesperson for the war. The conflict was conceived in Washington but the advertising rights were outsourced to London. In years to come Blair and Iraq will go together in the public consciousness like Chamberlain and appeasement, like Thatcher and privatisation. Like Eden and Suez.
The sheer magnitude of this controversy, the strong suspicion that Blair sent British troops to kill and die on a lie, ensures that it will continue to command attention. Like Banquo’s ghost, this grave slight on the PM’s integrity will haunt the rest of his premiership, maybe even the rest of his life. It is because of Iraq that, in years to come, many of his compatriots will recall his name with spitting rage.
Blair may want the electorate to move on but he himself never can. Only the discovery of WMD will put an end to the questioning. Even Blair would admit that this seems almost impossible now. Blair’s campaign of lies and half-truths in late 2002 / early 2003 will always be with him. Quite simply, too many people know too much to keep this conspiracy secret. There will be more Katherine Gunns emerging from the secret services. There will certainly be further revelations from Clare Short. It was hubris on Blair’s part to assume that he could cover up this deception in perpetuity. The truth will come out, one can only hope that it comes out quickly enough to force Blair from office in disgrace.
In the meantime Blair has sunk to a level of contempt in the eyes of British voters to which I can’t recall any other PM sinking. Thatcher was the great polariser but of course this means that she was loved as well as hated. No-one loves Blair. Major’s government was comically inept and corrupt but the man himself retained a level of affection from the voters. He was pitied rather than despised.
Blair though is despised by a large section of the British public and the chief reason for this is Iraq. His credibility on any issue is shot because of his lies over Iraq. When he opens his mouth, the British people assume that he’s lying. If he told them it was March, they’d go and check a calendar.
Even those who support Blair and will vote for him next year, do so with no enthusiasm. The fact that Blair is not Michael Howard is all that he has left. It may occur to the Labour Party that their great vote-winner of yesteryear is now a liability.