Here is a fine example of how the debate over Iraq has twisted so many great minds into knots. Anthony Seldon, historian and (fairly sympathetic) biographer of Blair, has a column in the Times today that is a classic of its genre:
The question he must answer is why exactly he was so fixated on the removal of Saddam Hussein. He should admit that the moral argument was more compelling to him personally than the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
So, Seldon - who can, apparently, read minds - has already decided to what Blair "should admit". If he doesn't admit it, he's lying. If he does admit it, he lied. Either way, drown or float, he's a liar.
Bizarrely, Seldon tries to have it both ways. He describes Blair as "deep and principled man" and also accuses him of "dissembling", for years, over Iraq. Difficult to reconcile these two judgements, you might have thought.
But here's the classic:
His guiding light today must not be to explain or defend himself, but to be totally honest.
Er, right.
Why don't we just have it over with and burn him at the stake?
Comments