Richard Ingrams - Historians
Home > Opinion > Columnists > Richard Ingrams
Richard Ingrams’s Week: No one talks nonsense quite like a historian
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Sir Martin Gilbert, the allegedly distinguished historian who is one of those appointed to investigate the Iraq war, has let it be known that one day in the future Bush and Blair might be seen in the same light as Roosevelt and Churchill. A good example of the rule that when it comes to talking nonsense it's hard to beat a historian.
Journalists have always been a more reliable source of information, and thanks to their efforts we now know the answers about Blair, sexed-up dossiers, his lies about the weapons of mass destruction. I myself have a large collection of books which tell me all I want to know on the subject.
There is, however, still a mystery about Iraq, which is why any inquiry into the war should begin by questioning Americans. It was, after all, their war and it was their president who started it. We, in the person of our sanctimonious Prime Minister Blair, merely tagged along.
Why did the Americans invade? We still don't know. Even Bush's director of policy at the state department Richard Haass has said that "he would go to his grave not knowing the answer". Some people insist that it was all about oil, others that preserving the security of Israel was a prime factor.
These are questions that Brown's committee can be relied on not to pursue – least of all the question of any Israeli involvement. Like his fellow historian Lawrence Freedman, who also sits on the inquiry, Sir Martin Gilbert is a committed Zionist and he would be most unwilling to consider anything that might disturb his absurd conception of Blair and Bush as a latter-day Churchill and FDR.
[]
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/richard-ingrams/
richard-ingramsrsquos-week-no-one-talks-nonsense-quite-like
-a-historian-1710763.html
Richard Ingrams’s Week: No one talks nonsense quite like a historian
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Sir Martin Gilbert, the allegedly distinguished historian who is one of those appointed to investigate the Iraq war, has let it be known that one day in the future Bush and Blair might be seen in the same light as Roosevelt and Churchill. A good example of the rule that when it comes to talking nonsense it's hard to beat a historian.
Journalists have always been a more reliable source of information, and thanks to their efforts we now know the answers about Blair, sexed-up dossiers, his lies about the weapons of mass destruction. I myself have a large collection of books which tell me all I want to know on the subject.
There is, however, still a mystery about Iraq, which is why any inquiry into the war should begin by questioning Americans. It was, after all, their war and it was their president who started it. We, in the person of our sanctimonious Prime Minister Blair, merely tagged along.
Why did the Americans invade? We still don't know. Even Bush's director of policy at the state department Richard Haass has said that "he would go to his grave not knowing the answer". Some people insist that it was all about oil, others that preserving the security of Israel was a prime factor.
These are questions that Brown's committee can be relied on not to pursue – least of all the question of any Israeli involvement. Like his fellow historian Lawrence Freedman, who also sits on the inquiry, Sir Martin Gilbert is a committed Zionist and he would be most unwilling to consider anything that might disturb his absurd conception of Blair and Bush as a latter-day Churchill and FDR.
[]
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/richard-ingrams/
richard-ingramsrsquos-week-no-one-talks-nonsense-quite-like
-a-historian-1710763.html
posted by Andrew Simon at 10:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home