"In March 2002, any conflict with Iraq was still far away. That month saw the first discussion by British Government officials of compiling a 'dossier of evidence' against Saddam.

George W Bush had already made it clear to Blair at a summit in Washington that Iraq 'had to be dealt with'."

I still want to know why? I was for going after the WMD. I was suckered. I want to know why they thought it necessary to take out Saddam. What were the geopolitical reasons? They know WMD were a good 'man in the street' reason, but it was not theirs. What was Bush's reasons?

More from the Guardian article, in fact the last paragraph: Sir John Stanley, Conservative MP and former Minister, gave a clear exposition of what the committee believe the issue is about. 'The most crucial aspect of the interface between intelligence and policy - and you, Mr Campbell sit right down in the middle - is that intelligence helps to formulate policy and that policy never, never helps to formulate intelligence,' he said.

Campbell now awaits the verdict of the committee in eight days' time.

7th July... I'll be waiting.

1079 Also posted to: Home page . At: 10:46:09 AM  . .
Permalink  Top  Search Google  Technorati
Other title(s) for this story: War of the words, diversionary tactics, sacrificial lambs