The Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war is already running a propaganda campaign that it “won’t be a whitewash.”
But you only need to realise that its members were appointed by Gordon Brown — one of the perpetrators — and read the terms of reference to realise this is a whitewash before it even starts.
… the purpose of the Inquiry is to examine the United Kingdom’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened, and to identify lessons that can be learned.
What about saying whether anybody involved in the Iraq conflict should face criminal charges?
The Inquiry is not a court of law. The members of the Committee are not judges, and nobody is on trial. But if the Committee finds that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, it will say so.
So this inquiry isn’t about finding out who did it and how to avoid such a crime in the future. It’s about learning how to more effectively plan these criminal wars in the future.
No Right Turn:
It would be nice to think that this exposure of the truth might change something and might lead to some justice. Unfortunately, the capacity of the British political system to ignore the crimes and failings of its leaders is practically infinite. The terms of reference for the inquiry are enough proof of that — it is about learning how to plan a war based on lies in secret more effectively, not about stopping the government from doing it in the first place. I have no doubt that this material will be explored at the hearings and mentioned in the report that eventually emerges; I am equally certain that that report will carefully avoid blaming any specific individual or holding them to account. The failings will be “systemic”, the crimes not attributable. And so, with another thick layer of whitewash, the British government will totter on, wondering all the time why no-one believes in it (and pushing for ever more repressive measures to keep the faithless proles in line)…
Though I would like very much to be proved wrong.
External links: