posted on May, 7 2004 @ 02:46 AM
As far as I'm aware, there has been no criticism of Scarlett's suitability for the the post. The issue here is one of the impartiality of the
intelligence services. Regardless of his CV, Scarlett has been too close to the Downing Street machine, and has been irredeemably politicised.
Catagorically, he will never be allowed to "get on with his job", because the twin spectres of Hutton and Campbell will haunt every decision he
makes. For that reason, if no other, he should not have been appointed to such a sensitive position, at such a sensitive time.
And, as a footnote: Blair, for all his faults, is not stupid. He must have known that the Tories would make political capital out of this
appointment, and that such gains would be potentially devastating at the present time. Why, therefore, did he go ahead with it? Because he believed
Scarlett was "the right man for the job"? Or because he had to honour a prior agreement?
Which of these is more compelling, given Blair's somewhat grubby history?