Alistair Campbell isn't getting his picture here - instead this is the result of the dossier he denies influencing

There are lots of reasons to have a problem with Alistair Campbell. My main beef with him is that by becoming the most notorious of “spin doctors” his bullying, goading and arrogant manner has tarnished the entire PR profession with his chippy, chalky brush. Whenever I tell people that I’m in Public Relations, they think of Alistair Campbell and assume I spend all day yelling obscenities down the phone to journalists and anyone else who cares to displease me.

As much fun as that sounds, it’s not the case. The second problem I have with him was perfectly illustrated by his appearance today in front of the Iraq Inquiry - that like his political master Tony Blair, he is incapable of admitting that he may have made mistakes while in his government position. We may have all swallowed the 45 minutes sophistry back in 2002 but it should be perfectly clear in 2010 that the dossiers of both September of that year and February 2003 were packed full of information that was at best selectively presented and leadingly phrased and at worst blatantly untrue.

Today, Campbell refused to accept any criticism of his role, he denied having over-ridden intelligence information with his own advice on “presentation” and said he totally stood by every word in the 2002 dossier. “You seem to be wanting me to say that Tony Blair signed up to saying, regardless of the facts and WMD, we are going to get rid of this guy,” he said. “It was not like this.” Well then, Alistair, exactly how was it?

Did Tony Blair not discuss regime change back in 2001 with President Bush? Was the emphasis of the dossier not changed from “may” have WMDs capable of a 45-minute launch to “has“? Lewes MP Norman Baker might be a little deluded about the death of Dr David Kelly (he thinks the government did it) but his interview on Sky News earlier (sadly not available on their website) showed just how discredited the Campbell sticking-to-the-guns stance is.

And while Campbell was confident and easily dealt with the tame questioning today from a panel whose body language reeked of mistrust for him, his “Je ne regrette rien” attitude doesn’t paint him in a sympathetic light. We can, no doubt, expect more of the same from Tony Blair when he appears in front of the inquiry too. He will say that he believed that the dossier was true, that the fact it has subsequently been shown to be a pile of fibs was not forseeable at the time and that he would probably have gone ahead in Iraq regardless of WMDs because he believe removing Saddam was the right thing to do.

Possibly it was, although it would be interesting to note the Iraqi people’s view on that subject, which has little to do on the whole with democracy and human rights and far more to do with tribal and religious considerations. But if getting rid of Saddam merited invasion, why are we not invading Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, Burma and, for that matter, China? Why don’t we intervene in Tibet or the drug wars of Mexico?

It is a shame that both Blair and Campbell are too battoned-down to understand that moral judgements are rarely applicable on a case-by-case basis; you either believe in a principle of removing dictators or you don’t – and if you do, you have to remove them everywhere. Unless there’s some other reason of course that we are not being told about. Surely not.

Sir John Chilcot

It’s not unusual for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre to be full but perhaps rarely are events held there that cause a queue to overflow outside. This morning, the Chilcot Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Iraq War began with Tony Blair expected to be among those giving evidence.

Now that he can no longer expect diplomatic immunity from prosecution after his EU presidential bid failed, this must be a nervous time for Mr Blair. Several newspapers have run stories suggesting that the facts of the matter are at significant variance to the official account of events, including that Blair denied military options were being considered when in fact they were.

What I hope will happen as a result of this inquiry is that we will know:

a) Whether or not Blair and others deliberately manipulated evidence, parliament and public opinion to go to war

b) Whether or not his central claim of “45 minutes from destruction” was true and how it originated

c) Why there was a woeful lack of planning for what happened after the Allies controlled Baghdad – the clock to insurgency then started ticking

d) How much US policy dictated British strategy in Iraq

We all suspect we know the answers, or at least many of them, to these questions. The picture emerging six years after invasion was that politicians exaggerated and spun their way to public approval for a war that the Americans wanted and that there was a price for not following them into.

But let’s not forget that the cost of war in Afghanistan and Iraq has stretched to billions and billions of pounds that have be scraped away from areas such a local authority highways, Revenue Support Grant, policing and even the Armed Forces themselves. The person who approved every penny for this shallow, shambolic military intervention is now sat in No 10 Downing Street, all of 500m from the conference centre.

We should not forget his role in this. Yes, Blair wanted war. But he also wanted welfare reform, Euro membership and to follow Tory spending plans. Gordon didn’t seem to have a problem blocking these things – so why wasn’t he more vocal in his opposition of the war? His role in signing the cheques seems to have been swept under the carpet.

It is interesting to note, of course, that Woking MP Humfrey Malins voted against the Iraq War and resigned from his position on the shadow front bench in protest. How right he has been proven to have been.