Cameron’s Coulson defence? He wants you to believe he’s a dupe

Andy Coulson is a criminal. He is guilty of conspiracy to hack phones. He committed these crimes before resigning under a cloud from the News of The World, a paper which later closed due to the fallout from phone hacking.

He was later hired by David Cameron, who in time became the Prime Minister. And yesterday he was a very sorry Prime Minister indeed. As soon as Coulson’s guilt was confirmed, the video of Cameron promising to apologise surfaced. And not long after that, Cameron was lightly flagellating himself in front of the cameras (in front of the cabinet table, to remind everyone how important he is).

“I am extremely sorry I employed him. It was the wrong decision,” he told the British public.

But why did he hire him?

“I did so on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and those turn out not be the case.”

Undertakings? That doesn’t sound very thorough, lets try that again. What lengths did you go to, in order to ensure you weren’t hiring a criminal to run your media operation?

“I asked him questions, if he knew about phone hacking, and he said he didn’t and I accepted those assurances and I gave him the job.”

But what questions? What assurances?

Was it simply a case of “Hey Andy, do you know anything about this nasty phone hacking business?” “No Dave.” “Ok, then Andy, you’re hired”?

Was there no part of Cameron that thought this might be an issue? Did Coulson charm him so completely that this incredibly intelligent man abandoned his critical faculties? And did this incredulity over allegations regarding Coulson last years extend into government? Was this why Coulson – a man of considerable power and influence – was not submitted for developed vetting immeditely as someone of his standing should have been? Was that why Cameron – when challenged over a thorough New York Times piece on phone hacking and Coulson in the Commons in 2011 – said it contained “no information in that article that would lead me to change my mind”?

David Cameron’s defence is that he did not know, and could not have known, about Coulson’s actions at the News of the World. His excuse is that he asked Coulson if he’d done anything wrong and was assured he hadn’t (a less than thorough interview technique). Cameron’s defence is that he is a dupe. That he was conned by Coulson and lied to. That he is as wronged here as anyone else.

It is – to steal a phrase – “an inverted pyramid of piffle”. Cameron could have done more to look into Coulson’s past than ask him a few questions. He could have had him vetted properly. He could have properly considered the warnings from all sides about Coulson. He could’ve dug a little deeper. He could have been a tad less credulous.

Cameron’s defence is that he is a dupe. As John Prescott said yesterday, we are now entering the court of public opinion. And Cameron’s defence doesn’t stand up to scrutiny…