Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: We won't forgive and forget Iraq
[Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a columnist at the Independent.]
Not so fast Ed Balls. And you too, Ed Miliband. To these clever Oxbridge chaps, citizens are bozos, credulous and callow, easy to turn this way and that. Part of the New Labour circus, they were in the troupe of illusionists who made and unmade reality. The tent fell in and they have crawled out, dusty, chastened, of course pledging more honesty and candour as they vie for the leadership of their party.
Balls says he accepts the Iraq invasion was a costly mistake. Too little, too late for the dead, maimed, gas-poisoned Iraqi victims of our savage adventure, too presumptuous. The affable Ed Miliband wants to "talk about the gap between the rich and the poor", an issue nowhere in his line of sight when his government was collectively "relaxed about the filthy rich". He just found his conscience from somewhere in the bottom of his discarded, soiled values. Now he says he realises there was a "catastrophic loss of trust over Iraq". And old father Kinnock anoints him.
Brother David was already up, bright and early and away, ahead of the other contenders. No more pin-striped solemnity – he is now in blue denim, smiling innocently, inviting in our trust. I like him a lot personally, but cannot ever forgive his ruthless political expediency. Having voted strongly for the war in Iraq, he now claims we '"wouldn't have invaded Iraq had we known then what we know now. Obviously no such decision would have been made if we'd known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction". His master Blair told Chilcot the invasion would have gone ahead whatever the evidence of weapons. A short pause here, should any of you need time to throw up.
Next, DM enthusiastically supported the most illiberal anti-terrorism measures and was against any investigation into the Iraq war (Note: William Hague's voting record on identity cards and investigation into the war shows him to be more liberal). The Blairite minister denied our complicity in torture and rendition, fought the courts when they demanded more transparency and was forced to apologise to the House of Commons for some of this treacherous obfuscation. Though a critic of the Israeli assault on the Lebanon, once he became the Foreign Secretary he wordlessly acquiesced to the disproportionate violence used by the Israeli government against Palestinians, and sought to protect those responsible from international justice.
All three top runners seem to believe their past stains will wash off easily with modern detergents and they can present themselves to the nation all fresh and pristine. But political memory, like personal memory, lingers for a very long time, can swell and fester, inspire or incite generations, change the course of history...
Read entire article at Independent (UK)
Not so fast Ed Balls. And you too, Ed Miliband. To these clever Oxbridge chaps, citizens are bozos, credulous and callow, easy to turn this way and that. Part of the New Labour circus, they were in the troupe of illusionists who made and unmade reality. The tent fell in and they have crawled out, dusty, chastened, of course pledging more honesty and candour as they vie for the leadership of their party.
Balls says he accepts the Iraq invasion was a costly mistake. Too little, too late for the dead, maimed, gas-poisoned Iraqi victims of our savage adventure, too presumptuous. The affable Ed Miliband wants to "talk about the gap between the rich and the poor", an issue nowhere in his line of sight when his government was collectively "relaxed about the filthy rich". He just found his conscience from somewhere in the bottom of his discarded, soiled values. Now he says he realises there was a "catastrophic loss of trust over Iraq". And old father Kinnock anoints him.
Brother David was already up, bright and early and away, ahead of the other contenders. No more pin-striped solemnity – he is now in blue denim, smiling innocently, inviting in our trust. I like him a lot personally, but cannot ever forgive his ruthless political expediency. Having voted strongly for the war in Iraq, he now claims we '"wouldn't have invaded Iraq had we known then what we know now. Obviously no such decision would have been made if we'd known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction". His master Blair told Chilcot the invasion would have gone ahead whatever the evidence of weapons. A short pause here, should any of you need time to throw up.
Next, DM enthusiastically supported the most illiberal anti-terrorism measures and was against any investigation into the Iraq war (Note: William Hague's voting record on identity cards and investigation into the war shows him to be more liberal). The Blairite minister denied our complicity in torture and rendition, fought the courts when they demanded more transparency and was forced to apologise to the House of Commons for some of this treacherous obfuscation. Though a critic of the Israeli assault on the Lebanon, once he became the Foreign Secretary he wordlessly acquiesced to the disproportionate violence used by the Israeli government against Palestinians, and sought to protect those responsible from international justice.
All three top runners seem to believe their past stains will wash off easily with modern detergents and they can present themselves to the nation all fresh and pristine. But political memory, like personal memory, lingers for a very long time, can swell and fester, inspire or incite generations, change the course of history...