Well now, Lord Hutton has released his report. Without having seen the full text, and with little more than the embargo-breaking Sun report to go by, what have we learned?

* First up, and most important for me, the Beeb is not now, is no longer, the reliable and independent news source that I believed it to be. What a great shame that is.
* Second major point is that Tony Blair and his bureaucracy had not “doctored” (I prefer that to “sexed-up”) the evidence favouring the invasion of Iraq.

I suppose that on the global scale the first will be of fairly small beers to most people. I know that I can get over it.

Before I start on the remainder of this, I must also state that I do not see any evidence of a conspiracy in the outcome of the Hutton enquiry. There were a number of pieces of evidence given publicly to the enquiry, which have to be accepted as truth and which clearly pointed to the likely outcome. So on that basis alone I am happy.

But there are a number of questions which arise now, and the most important of these revolve around the principles of government accountability.

The obvious inference of the enquiry finding that the evidence and reports were not doctored is that Tony Blair received that information from British Government intelligence sources. Again, no conspiracy here – it is in line with relevant evidence given to the enquiry.

So it seems there is another conundrum here. Tony Blair was entitled to use (in good conscience had to use) the evidence he was given to “protect the interests of Great Britain”.

One of the principal “facts” presented to Blair by British Intelligence was debunked within days of the announcement; that SH had attempted to purchase U (yellow cake) from West Africa. Since the invasion, most, many, if not all, of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq (other than that Saddam is a very bad man and probably guilty of genocide) have been proven to be either untrue or mistaken.

The conundrum is; who is going to face the music for what have become patently obvious failures in the gathering, analysis, and confirmation of information gathered?

That, ironically, is the very same failing for which the Beeb has been found guilty by the Hutton enquiry.
[ Mon Jan 26, 09:08:46 AM | bob renner | edit ]
The political silly season is past its climax - I usually measure that from the annual "State of the Union" speech from the U.S. President but in New Zealand here it is the four weeks prior to parliament reconvening.

And once again we have connections all over the place - apart from the State of the Union Address;

The release of the Hutton Report in London later this week.
Winston Peters had a free dinner with the Simunovichs.

To explain the latter, Winston Peters is "leader" of one of the minor political parties represented in our Parliament. Known as "New Zealand First" , it really should carry the name "The Winston Peters Party". He is a mildly charismatic, Maori, and I will confess not a person that I like at all. Despite that he has my grudging admiration as a political survivor. Most of all, he suffers politically from not having the resources to chase effectively those issues from which he can gain the most mileage.

His first real "tilt at the windmills" became known as "The Winebox Affair". It involved a multi-million dollar tax scam perpetrated through the use of valid but worthless tax certificates issued by the Cook Island government. Winston conducted his part in this, and was instrumental in getting the government to establish a full and formal enquiry into most aspects of the scam.

The latest imbroglio involves a "free lunch" from a restaurant here in Auckland. Politically there should be absolutely zero mileage in a free lunch except that in this instance the restaurant is owned by a fishing company, central to another parliamentary enquiry involving naughty dealings with the allocation of fishing quota. Mr Peters is a senior and leading member of the parliamentary committee undertaking the enquiry.

But to go back to the beginning again...

The State of the Union Address was notable, not for what President Bush said but (as many commentators have already pointed out) for what was left unsaid. It was "a very forward looking" address. It did not canvas the past at all; well, certainly not any of the "history" that could damage his prospects for re-election come November.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Not a word. The subsequent statement from David Kay has done President Bush no favours at all, by once again drawing attention to the gaps between prediction and outcome, between justification and reality.

That is obviously the link to the Hutton Report as well. That promises to be either a total whitewash, or an effective closure to Tony Blair's political career. If it does turn out to be a bucket of white stuff (as distinct from brown) then there will be far less credence in the parliamentary process in Britain as well. So from that point of view Lord Hutton is carrying a very heavy responsibility.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now the connection...

Winston Peters is one pugnatious little bugger. His response to the revelations of the "free lunch" on television news has been to respond with defamation proceedings against the broadcaster. It seems, on this occasion, that he is very likely to be in the clear. To make matters worse, it looks like the news report was prompted by political enemies with an eye to the elections.

Not so, President Bush and Tony Blair.

But why is it that politicians universally can not take that step of saying, "Sorry folks, it looks like we stuffed up on that one. What is there that we can do to repair the damage?"