Julie notes that the Mail seems to think it knows the findings of the inquiry before it reports, and that it’s entitled to preempt the findings of a judicial inquiry.
The impression is that Chilcot will denounce Tony Blair as a liar and scoundrel, and will reveal details of the old rogue’s misdeeds, including that ‘a deal to go to war had been ‘signed in blood’ at President Bush’s Texas ranch in 2002.’ I wonder if the Mail thinks Tony Blair signed a contract with George Bush, actually in his own blood. Who knows.
Julie analyses ‘the ‘damning criticism’ of Tony Blair’s handling of what the Mail describes as one of the ‘biggest foreign policy fiascos in modern history’ and sensible people regard as the liberation of oppressed people from tyranny.’
Is the Mail right about what the inquiry will say? There are two ways this could go:
1) The inquiry says that the evil Tony Blairs made a pact, signed literally in blood, with George Bush to invade Iraq as part of his plan to spend all our money on foreigners. In which case the Daily Mail will say that Chilcot is a model of integrity, in the best traditions of the independent judiciary, and speaking truth to power.
2) The far more likely scenario is that the Chilcot inquiry, like the Hutton and Butler inquiries that came before, will conclude that there was some incompetence but no actual wrongdoing. The Mail will then say that the inquiry was a whitewash and that Sir John Chilcot is a government stooge, and possibly an agent of Israeli intelligence. They will then call for a new inquiry.
This is I think the third inquiry into the decisions that led to war. I wonder how long the Mail and the antiwar left will insist on pulling the inquiry bandit at public expense.
Personally, I would like to see an inquiry into the Mail‘s ‘journalism’ regarding asylum seekers, and the role this has played in the growth of far right terrorism.
(Image: John Rentoul)