Whitewash? What whitewash? The Iraq inquiry is riveting

---

As journalistic questions go, asking Sir John Chilcot if his Iraq inquiry was going to be a whitewash probably doesn't rate up there with the Frost-Nixon exchanges.

What answer was expected: "Well as it happens, yes it will be. I think that will be best all round, don't you? It doesn't do to rock the boat you know."

It is the sort of question that so often infuriates TV viewers, along with: "You have just heard in court how your husband was brutally murdered by a care-in-the-community psychopath - how do you feel?"

Except, in the case of the Iraq inquiry, it was exactly the right question at the start of this week's proceedings.

Not because there could be any other answer than the one given, but because it reminded all concerned of the unhappy history of the previous fistful of inquiries, all of which have been tarred with the same brush as the most famous of them all, the Hutton inquiry.

And it warned we did not want to go there again.

So, in reality, it was the question that could not be avoided. It had to be asked.

It is a pretty safe bet, however, that in a year or so's time, when the probe delivers its verdict, sorry, conclusions - Sir John has already announced he is not here to deliver court-style verdicts - there will be a huge chorus of "whitewash" from all the usual quarters.

That near-inevitable cry will be met by the equally predictable, exasperated counter attack pointing out that, once again, it has been found that Tony Blair is in the clear.

Make no mistake, for the critics of the war, it is Tony "war criminal" Blair who is on trial here. And until they get him hauled before the Hague, once it has finished with Radovan Karadzic, they will not be happy.

That is not going to happen, probably, because the search for the "smoking gun" that would finally condemn him is likely to be about as fruitful as Blair's own search for the "smoking gun" that would prove Saddam had WMD. And for pretty similar reasons.

But all of this might just be missing the point.

We are only a week into this inquiry and, despite the initial fears it might be a dull re-tread, it has proved riveting viewing.

Former UK ambassador to Washington Sir Christopher Meyer has been the star of the show so far.

His evidence, littered with colourful language and the odd swear word, was delivered in his characteristically laid back, conversational, witty style. And, did he mention, he had a book out?

Sir Christopher is the sort of chap politicians normally hate and distrust. Unlike so many of them, he speaks in normal sentences, often with a bit of pepper added to give them extra entertainment value, and has the knack of communicating with as little obfuscation as possible. You are left with the impression he has really told you something.

The next star witness was Britain's former UN ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, an entirely different kettle of fish.

Precise, pin-striped and occasionally pedantic, he delivers his darts with a deadly accuracy that can sometimes go unnoticed, like a stiletto in the spine.

Both men made superb television. Sir Christopher referred to the key meeting in 2002 between Blair and US president George W Bush in which it is widely believed the then PM offered his American counterpart unambiguous support for military action and regime change.

Sir Christopher couldn't enlighten us on this because the meeting was held at the President Bush's Crawford ranch and no one else was present. No officials, no observers, no note takers. The former ambassador's eyes and rolling hand gestures said it all.

So no official record for historians or inquiry heads. No "smoking gun".

Sir Jeremy declared he was satisfied the war was legal, but not legitimate as it lacked a clear democratic basis. He explained the difference in carefully chewed, precise, diplomatic language.

And this seems to be the way this inquiry will go. A gradual build up of evidence which will finally give us the nearest thing we are likely to get to a script of how this war was conceived and conducted and, perhaps more importantly now, what happened afterwards.

Smoking guns, however, will most likely remain buried in the desert.