Well, finally. The war in Iraq has become an issue. I reported earlier than no one, not the candidates, the press, nor the average bloke on the street, was talking about the two-tonne elephant in the room: the Iraq war.
But things seem to have taken a turn this weekend. After taking criticism for not speaking up about the war, LibDem leader Charles Kennedy gave a press conference this morning, joined by potential cabinet ministers Menzies Campbell and Baroness Shirley Williams. The focus was entirely on the war. (He's explained their deliberate "damned if you do" strategy was to initially focus on the economy, taxes, pensions, and other pocketbook issues, to avoid being labeled a one-issue party.) In his statement, he questioned whether or not Tony Blair can be trusted, implying the future could hold similar situations (Iran) where a Prime Minister will be forced to choose between George Bush's scheme for world domination and the British people's natural reluctance to build another empire. (Okay, that's not exactly what he said; he was much more circumspect than my fingers are when I type.)
The press was vigorous in picking apart his statement, quizzing him on his allegations that America is determined to go to war with Iran and may bring Britain along, and his statements that Saddam's regime had been near the brink of collapse. (The press being composed of mostly white men, I noticed.) They were also inordinately consumed with the question of why didn't he call Tony Blair a liar, as Michael Howard did, and did he want to see him in the docks.
The most persistent question was "Isn't the world better off with Saddam gone?" (A question which ignores the fact the war was sold on the basis of WMDs and also implies the ends justify the means.) Baroness Williams got the last word, however, pointing out this argument would compel us to go to war on multiple fronts were the mission to rid the world of all despicable dictators.
Despite the pettiness of some of the questions, I had to applaud the persistence of the press, quite the opposite of the cowed bunch in the White House press gaggle. (And yes, I mixed some additional minor metaphors in here; today's metaphor, however, is still "elephants.")
As BBC analysts agreed later, the best thing Charles Kennedy can do is continue to link Tony Blair to George Bush. The British people hate the idea of their leader being led by the rogue cowboy currently occupying the White House.
But this was merely an opening salvo in the shock and awe "Remember the War!" campaign. After the news conference, Radio Four aired a live interview with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. To say interviewer John Humphrys was grilling him would be calling a spade a spoon—Jack Straw was sizzled, poked, and picked apart until nothing but a few feathers remained. I almost—almost—felt sorry for him. But then I remembered his performance at the UN prior to the war, and my heart fluttered with glee at the notion of him sweating upon Mr. Humphrys' spit. (My latest fantasy involves George Bush being dogged by John Humphrys.)
The questions, which emerged over the weekend, were over the advice given by the attorney general prior to the Iraq invasion. Reports published in The Daily Mail indicate there were six points on which the legality of the war could be challenged. Tony Blair, however, has said the advice was "unequivocal" yet refuses to release the 13-page report. (Who, I wonder, leaked the details to the Daily Mail?) Every time Jack Straw dodged the question, John Humphrys insisted upon having an answer.
Amazing. I can't help but remember in America it's whores like "Jeff Gannon" who get to ask the questions. Professional journalists who ask both (or all three) sides tough questions aren't allowed anywhere near the White House press room, and the American people have no clue the purpose of journalism is to discover the truth, not complicity hide it.
But let's come back to that rant another day.
Now Labour have just had their press conference, in front of their signature pink background. Tony Blair was clearly a man on the ropes. Draw a line under it, he whined, poodle-like, and Gordon Brown dutifully crowed about the economy, trotting out those sums he's so good at. Shorter Gordon Brown: "It's the economy, you daft buggers, and I know more maths than Michael Howard." (And I have more metaphors than a barnyard.)
Will it matter to the voters? Will they suddenly become impassioned by anti-war fervor and vote for a regime change, despite a generally booming economy? Not likely. Polls still report a small fraction claim the war is a leading issue. But as several pundits have opined, the issue is subsumed by the larger issue of trust.
So yes, the elephant has finally been spotted, unfortunately, elephants aren't very alarming creatures.
Except when they're ridden by George Bush and called "the Republican party." And that's one elephant that won't hunt.
