The Osterley Times: Rentoul's immoral defence of Blair's lack of responsibility

John Rentoul is revelling in his new role as Blair's "Apologist in Chief". Perhaps it's the fact that he wrote Blair's biography that makes him feel bound to assume such a role. But it's coming to seem as if Rentoul gets louder in an exact inverse proportion to how much power Blair at any point holds. Since Blair has been forced to announce he will go soon, Rentoul is now transmitting at almost fog horn levels.

He has written an extraordinary article in yesterday's Independent newspaper where he sets out to defend the rather - yes, I'll say it again - unhinged interview Blair gave last week on the Today programme in which he said he accepted "no responsibility" for the mess that is Iraq.

Rentoul begins: (All bold emphasis throughout is mine)

There is method in the madness of Tony Blair. He cannot say sorry for the invasion of Iraq, because he does not accept that he made the wrong decision. This is a reasonable view, although many readers of this newspaper may disagree with it, but the Prime Minister sometimes presents it in such an unreasonable way that his critics resort to the language of psychology. He is delusional, they say, or, in the vogue phrase that Sir Malcolm Rifkind threw at him last week, he is "in denial".

As one of the people who have said that Blair sounded "detached from any kind of reality" I found his article fascinating, especially as it was printed in the Independent: a newspaper most of whose readers would no doubt favour descriptions much stronger than the one I chose.

However, it is interesting that Rentoul states that Blair does "not accept" that he made the wrong decision and that Rentoul found such a stance to be "reasonable". Blair has just announced the British withdrawal from Iraq. A withdrawal that Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at London's Institute of Strategic Studies, has described as being "criminally irresponsible" in abandoning the people of Basra to the ravages of "militias, criminals and a police force fighting for control".

It is inconceivable that this is the end result that Blair would have wished for. Indeed, he himself is on record as saying so, although Rentoul quotes this in Blair's defence:

That he agreed with Robert Gates, the new US Defense Secretary, that "we" were not winning the war in Iraq.

If Blair admits that we "are not winning" the war in Iraq, and then goes on to announce, shortly after, that we are withdrawing - which is exactly what he has done - then we are announcing a retreat. We are conceding defeat. Blair might not have called it such, but make no mistake, that is what it is.

Is Rentoul seriously arguing that a Prime Minister who launches a war of choice, which he subsequently loses, can claim not to have thought he made the wrong decision in waging that war?

Because, if this is seriously the argument he is proffering, then the "delusional" tag applies equally to himself.

More interesting still, is the fact that he then seeks to defend Blair by citing the example of Thatcher, the first real indication of how "New Labour" Rentoul really is:

Blair provoked his critics in the Commons on Wednesday by refusing to accept any responsibility for what he called the "wretched and inexcusable bloodshed" in Iraq. "The terrorists cause the terrorism," he told Sir Malcolm: a statement of grating moral simplicity in the style of the later Margaret Thatcher. Clever people who should have known better used to question her sanity too.

Now here Rentoul implies that when critics of Blair talk of him as "insane", "deranged" or - as I said - "detached from any kind of reality", that we are somehow implying that the person we are talking about is fit to be hospitalised.

We are not. That is not the charge we are making. We are saying that the person in question is talking piffle. That, when the history of this moment is written, the person we are talking about will be found to be saying things that history does not bear out.

And it's fascinating that he chooses to name Thatcher in Blair's defence. Thatcher is a person whose very name should be an anathema to any Labour politician. And yet Rentoul names her in defence of Blair.

He has, inadvertently, chosen well; for Thatcher is the perfect example of a politician who was said to be "deranged" and of whom history, subsequently, found to be out of step with her time.

Thatcher, who Rentoul has chosen as his example with which to defend Blair, expressed her admiration for General Pinochet whilst she condemned Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist".

Is there a single sentient human being who would argue that Thatcher's understanding of the period of history that she was living through was not at odds with the reality of that era? Indeed, that it was not so at odds with that era's reality that she could reasonably be described as being "detached from any kind of reality", especially the reality that was unfolding before her very eyes?

Is there any single person alive who thinks that the legacy of Pinochet will be more revered by future generations that the legacy of Mandela? Is it unreasonable to describe anyone who argued for such a wrong to be described as "deranged" or "detached from any kind of reality"?

She was as detached from the reality of her time - as history will understand it - as Blair currently is from his.

Blair is stating falsehoods. He is stating things that history will find to be untrue.

Rentoul is not only seeking to defend a person who is knowingly telling falsehoods, he is asking us to applaud the manner of the deceit.

There is a reason he will not accept the obvious fact that Iraq's present state is a consequence of the invasion four years ago. While it may be inescapable that he and George Bush bear some indirect responsibility for much that has happened in Iraq since March 2003, he can see where accepting such a concept would lead.

Would the front pages carry essays on contingent moral liability? Would there be a discussion on the Today programme about the extent to which the consequences of the invasion were foreseeable? No, he would be torn apart by the one-sided media that do not allow for nuance. He would be held personally accountable for every violent death in Iraq since the invasion. The headlines would read: "Blair - I have blood on my hands." Or similar.

So, the reason we must accept Blair saying things that are obviously at odds with reality is because we have "a one sided media that do not allow for nuance". Indeed, that "one sided media that do not allow for nuance" would probably hold Blair "accountable for every violent death in Iraq since the invasion". An accountability that Rentoul will only admit that Blair and Bush have some "indirect responsibility" for.

He admits "the obvious fact that Iraq's present state is a consequence of the invasion four years ago" but then chooses to give a free pass to the two men who launched that war. A war that all would concede was a war of choice.

If politicians are not responsible for the consequences of wars of choice that they launch, then they really have abdicated all responsibility for any of their actions. And that is what Rentoul is arguing. He argues that it was either the present situation or "Saddam still in power", as if the former is preferable to the latter.

If Blair is to take his share of the blame for the disastrous state of Iraq, then the invasion's opponents should accept that they wish Saddam Hussein were still in power.

This is a false choice as it implies that anyone who opposed the invasion is a natural supporter of Saddam as they wish he were still in power. I do not wish Saddam was in power any more than I wish Mugabe ruled Zimbabwe; but there are consequences to our actions and, sometimes, the consequences are so horrendous that they outdo any good that may come from the initial intentions, however well meaning they might have been.

Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives as a direct consequence of Bush and Blair's actions and Blair has just announced a withdrawal of British forces which leaves the people of Basra "to the ravages of militias, criminals and a police force fighting for control".

One does not have to be a person who wishes Saddam were still in control in order to say that Bush and Blair have failed in their mission, and that their failure has had real consequences for hundreds of thousands of people.

Rentoul argues that Blair cannot accept this because "the headlines would read: "Blair - I have blood on my hands.""

Again, he has - inadvertently I suspect - chosen his example very well.

When two million Brits marched through London in the largest demonstration ever in this nation's history, in the hope of dissuading Blair from embarking upon an invasion of Iraq, he took to the stage in Glasgow and announced that those of us who opposed the war would have blood on our hands if we stopped the military action. Those were his words. We would have blood on our hands.

And now Rentoul justifies Blair evading all personal responsibility for a war of choice on the grounds that newspapers may accuse him of the very thing that he was happy to accuse us of.

That's not deranged. That's simply immoral.