The Sketch: Are we going in? The PM replies with his weapons of mass obfuscation

By Simon Carr
14 January 2003

DURING THE Prime Minister's monthly press conference, Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor, asked a question of such clarity and gravity I could hardly hear what he was saying. Never heard anything like it, certainly not in parliament. He genuinely expected to be answered. The novelty was deafening.

His question has often been asked in the House of Commons but no one expected it to produce anything useful in reply.

Marr asked the Prime Minister whether he believed he had UN authorisation to invade Iraq, whether or not the weapons inspectors found the famous smoking gun.

It is the fascinating question. Is Tony Blair going to invade Iraq without UN approval? He has always said the UN's authority must be upheld, so naturally we assume he'd ignore it when the time came. But knowing that he would defy it in the future means that he must ostentatiously kowtow to it now to bolster the UN's authority in the long term.

Peter Kelner is very good on this. Mr Blair can't offer a public guarantee to abide by a new UN resolution because that would encourage a veto by our ancient enemy (the French). Only by keeping alive the possibility of unilateral action will the French, Russians and Chinese be encouraged on to the winning side and thus allow a new UN resolution to be passed.

Never have our Prime Minister's quantum talents for being in two places at the same time been more useful.

"If a breach is discovered," he kept saying. He said it so often I started keeping a running total; it came to 11. Eleven times he said, "If there's a breach." But isn't the whole point that Saddam Hussein is in continuous breach of UN resolutions? And the 8,000-page document laying out in considerable detail his lack of weapons of mass destruction - wasn't that a breach in itself?

Mr Blair and the Americans insist they know Saddam has WMD. So what are the weapons inspectors for, as Channel 5 asked. "Aren't they a waste of time?" Oh no, no, no, the Prime Minister said. Or in other words, yes.

Don Macintyre from this paper referred to a quote assumed to be from the American hawk Donald Rumsfeld. January 27th was going to be a very big day; the beginning of the end. It's the day the weapons inspectors make their first report.

"None of us are putting speculative or arbitrary time frames on this," the Prime Minister said.

What did that mean? Should the weapons inspectors be given more time to find hard evidence? Or not?

"There is no point in speculating," the Prime Minister said.

Would we be able to go to war in April, May and June?

"Let's just see," he replied. "Put those questions to me in a few weeks' time.' Why? "Let's wait and see; if you speculate, people interpret it in different ways."

He went on to repeat that he didn't believe Saddam's claim that he lacked these weapons. "I'm quite sure he has them," he said.

Does that mean we're going in? It sounds very much like it. Which can only mean we aren't.

The Prime Minister's demand that Saddam be open and transparent must be open to cruel satire. But not from this loyal sketchwriter!

Simoncarr75@hotmail.com

Comment