[London Taxi image by David Iliff under GNU Free Documentation License]

News I Made Up

London, December 8th

Sir John Scarlett, former head of the JIC and MI6, confirmed today that the controversial 45 Minute Claim in the so-called ‘dodgy dossier‘ was the product of long conversations in the back of a taxi. Sir John, whose knighthood was somewhat tarred by the debate over intelligence in the run up to the war, declined to identify the man in question, referring to him only as ‘Bill’.

‘Bill’ also supplied the following ancillary information, which has been the basis of policy discussions in the UK, US, and elsewhere ever since:

• “I don’t know about you, mate, but I think they’re all in it together. I mean those Muslims and the Irish – and the bloody French.”
• “They ought to just beat the shit out of anyone they think is in the terror business. Send them to bloody Morocco or whatever and cut their sodding balls off.”
• “Minarets is what you’ve got to watch out for. When they get the bloody minarets up, mate, Sharia law’s on the way.”
• “I reckon that Obama bloke isn’t really American.”
• “It’ll take, what, a couple of months? Into Bagdad, do the job we should have done last time, piss off home in time for tea and medals, ey?”
• “Global warming? Make it nice for the summer, won’t it? What’s everyone so worried about?”
• “Well, I mean, it’s up to you, isn’t it, but I wouldn’t give my kids the MMR vaccine.”

Sir John Chilcott, leading the Iraq Inquiry, cautioned Scarlett against revealing anything sensitive.

#iraqinquiry 2: This Time It’s Arsenal

(We join the conversation several minutes in, with the discussion chaired by Raymond Fisket Trout, formerly of the Mesopotamia Desk, MI6, and Sir Stephen Piddlehinton, former Under-Secretary for Arabian Relations under Margaret Thatcher)

Sir Gregory Bufton Hardacre: I think it’s very clear that Iraq was unique, in that while it wasn’t the most nerve-wracking in terms of actually developing WMD, it was the one we felt might give weapons to terrorists.

Raymond Fisket Trout: May I just break in here and ask why you felt that way?

Sir Greg.: Well, we had some pretty compelling evidence. From various sources, some of it, of course, people who’d been tortured, which is always a favourite at times like this. But also because Saddam had a history of aggression and the use of WMD. He used them against Iran and against the Kurds, for example.

Ray F-T.: Oh, yes. Yes, I remember. That was rather embarrassing, because we were very much in favour of him at the time… Why, I remember getting on the phone and saying to him, look here, old bean, you can’t just…

Sir Stephen Piddlehinton: I think we can pass over that, Raymond, if you don’t mind. National interest and so on.

Ray F-T.: National interest?

Sir Stephen P.: I mean to say that the nation is not interested.

Ray F-T.: Oh, quite so. Um, while you’re up, would you mind passing me another lemon cream?

Sir Stephen P.: Not at all. Good, aren’t they?

Ray F-T.: Very good.

Sir Greg.: If we could return to the issue of WMD…

Ray F-T.: that’s my line.

[laughter]

Sir Greg.: No, seriously… taxpayer’s money, after all… I think it’s important that we discuss (oh, these lemon creams are very good, aren’t they?) that we discuss the issues…

Sir Stephen P.: All right, then. Who was responsible for repackaging a report on battlefield munitions as a scare story about WMDs?

Sir Greg.: On sober reflection, pass the lapsang souchong, please…

Hmm.

I didn’t really have much time to watch today, what with trying to finish the new novel and so on. However, what I did see seemed unduly collegial. Moreover, there was an awful lot of stuff about how Saddam had successfully deceived UNSCOM, and how he was trying jolly hard to get weapons of mass destruction.

Seriously, I kid you not. We’re back with how it was all but certain at the time that WMDs were on the menu for Saddam, and he was a real military risk and we were all going to be bombed with fairy dust and flying cows anthrax. [If you've forgotten about the world's most elusive nukes, allow me to refresh your memory.]

WMDs will apparently be tomorrow’s topic. I just hope it doesn’t go like this:

Question: at the time, with the limited information available to you and the obviously very serious responsibility you had, did you feel there was a reasonable argument to be made that Saddam Hussein wanted and could obtain weapons of mass destruction?

Answer: Yes.

Question: well, I think that’s conclusive. Thank you very much.

I also devoutly hope that when the committee starts to talk about sensitive issues which could theoretically lead to war crimes charges, they don’t immediately grant immunity to everyone who might be charged. Because I would regard that as an abdication of legitimacy.

You can follow the inquiry – the bits you’re allowed to see, that is – here.