Cohen: The establishment journalist who can't confront the truth about Iraq war

Columnists like Nick Cohen abuse their access to the national press to obsessively defend their personal positions on the war, in the face of widespread mainstream discredit ( see latest Observer article). Nobody with an ounce of power really believes the war was right any more. In the corridors of power and the annals of history, the argument is over, and Cohen was on the losing side.

No amount of sniping at opponents will change the reality that, on balance, Iraq has been a monumental f*ck-up. To suggest otherwise at this stage has no social purpose other than to defend oneself against accusations of poor judgment.

Cohen's column in the paper used to have the strapline "Without Prejudice". Presumably, it was removed when some sub-editor decided they couldn't keep on printing it and keep a straight face.

Despite Cohen's attempts to defile Brian Haw's anti-war convictions - he represents the mainstream. A few MILLION of us went out to protest the Iraq invasion and occupation. There were no mass protests for the war; just vicious politicians and drunk and corrupt journalists heeding the party line.

All the points raised about the current murderousness in Iraq - none of those were conditions on the ground before the invasion took place, so responsibility for those crimes resides ultimately with the invaders.
Cohen has conveniently forgotten why a war of aggression is the 'supreme' crime under the Nuremberg Principles. "It is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole". All the crimes Cohen mentions, and they are terrible, emanate from the original crime of aggression without which they would not now be occurring.

"a charity meant to help Iraqis who were the victims of both United Nations sanctions and Saddam Hussein's genocidal regime."

correction: a charity meant to help [publicise the conditions of Iraqi [children] who were the victims of both United Nations [genocidal] sanctions and Saddam Hussein's regime.

There is no doubt Hussein's regime was genocidal, but it did not systematically *target* children (that I am aware of). However, the UN sanctions regime was *described* as genocidal by *each* of the officals who ran it, it targetted children, and caused several *times* more deaths than Saddam.

"Call me a cockeyed optimist..."

No. I call you pro-genocide, providing it is white-eye Western boys killing brown-skinned Muslim men, women, and children. (You're not nearly so comfy vice-versa).

"Like Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theories..."

What? Where did this come from? Did a David Ike just hijack the Observer, or something? What's going on????

"Hyperbole at this intensity usually conceals insecurity."

AH. Now I understand. That's the the punchline to this, and every Nick Cohen, column (ever).

I have to admit I will be cheering the day Cohen stands in the dock with Blair for facilitating this evil crime.