Westminster blog

Greg Pope, the Blairite MP turned blogger, is distinctly unimpressed with Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s testimony at the Iraq Inquiry today:

It sounded like he’d had a terrible time when he was our man at the United Nations: kept out of the Blair-Bush loop, considered resigning, thought the war lacked legitimacy.

Goodness knows what he’ll have to say about the aftermath of the invasion which most people think was not well handled.

Strangely enough, I visited Iraq in late 2003 and met a Sir Jeremy Greenstock who I think had something to do with running that country at that time. Obviously they can’t be the same person but, I think you’ll agree, it is a remarkable coincidence.

Meow.

But I can’t help but think that Pope’s beef is with the inquiry panel as well. Today’s session was once again distinguished by a series of soft-ball questions, delivered like a looping underarm to a swashbuckling Sachin Tendulkar. Sir Jeremy at times could barely disguise his disdain.

The “inquisitors” seem much more interested in hearing the civil servant’s “perspective” than holding them to account. Little wonder that the hearings have often seemed like a long, uninterupted self-justification. Even without resorting to full cross-examinations, things could have easily been very different. The inquiry has published hardly any Whitehall documents from the period, letting the mandarins have their revenge, largely unchecked.