Evidence that the Government knew there were no WMD in Iraq : if they had it, they would have shown it to prove the fact (they didnt!)

As for Hutton - he did actually say the dossier had been ’sexed up’ in regarding basically making it ‘as strong as possible’ ie.more than it was.

Incidentally, the only evidence I have of this is logic, to my everlasting regret - as much as I’d like to have some photos of the PM busy with a bottle of Tippex while Alistair Campbell watches the door. The logic being that inspections over the years have uncovered nothing - admittedly, they have also uncovered things missing, but let’s face it, we were supposed to be concerned with the WMD Iraq had, not the ones they didn’t have any more. So, since the first gulf war nothing new has (or had before the war) been discovered. Claims of attemps to secure WMD material from elsewhere (Niger) were discredited in a childish way - in a laughable way, actually. A plagiarised thesis!!! Good intelligence, Tony… And since the latest war, nothing has been found. Now, as I said I served in the military, and I know that we would never have gone into combat without at least one spare respirator canister. However, this time around, the troops were not even warned by their local commanders of the possibility of chemical or biological weapons. A lot of the troops in theater didn’t even have one new canister, let alone a brand new spare. They knew there was no need. And that means that the government knew.

And I didn’t say that the government was aware of every tiny detail in drafting the document, I said I’m sure they were aware of every tiny complaint. I’m sure they weighed these up at the time and decided that they weren’t serious enough to embarrass the government if (or when, as the case now is) they became public.

Where is your evidence for the claim that the Government was aware of every tiny detail of the drafting of the Dossier?

Where is your evidence for the claim that the Government knew there were no usable WMD in Iraq before the war?

However, I still disagree - and I refuse to believe even for a second - that no-one higher up the chain was aware of any dissatisfaction. Firstly, by that time the powers that be were not in a mood to be swayed from their aim - going to war. I’m sure that the Government was made aware of every tiny little complaint, purely because of the import of the document, but decided that it’s own goals were more important than establishing if there was any reason for the doubts. This government, and by extension Tony Blair, knew long before committing to war that there were no WMD in Iraq - certainly useable WMD at the very least. Exactly what TBs overall angle is or was (UK/US relations, bribery, blackmail, etc) I really don’t know; I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was wrongly influenced by the US. But I do believe, and I know there are many others who believe the same, that this government knew exactly what it was doing when it escalated the war of words with the BBC - it was all purely a smokescreen because they always knew they were on dodgy ground.

And personally, I would have taken no action. It is in the nature of human beings to kill each other, to try to rise above each other. It’s called "survival of the fittest" and it exists everywhere in the world and always will. If we are going to intervene because of genocide or any other so-called humanitarian principle, why not intervene in Burma? N. Korea? half of Africa? A touch hypocritical, wouldn’t you say, that our higher principles apply only to some but not to others. Have no doubts; this same Government of so-called democratic, civilised people would be abusing their powers to the same extent as Milosovic did, given half the chance.

But I know some of the warmongers out there, who have no conception of the horrors of conflict (and I include most of our Government in that) say "let’s get ‘em" about anyone whose own idea of democracy doesn’t tally with our own. Apart from the fact that Governments like the power of having a heavily armed force to do their bidding, these kinds of conflicts also give them the opportunity to try out new equipment, new tactics and so on. And to forestall the protests, it does and has happened; witness the Spanish Civil War - Hitler used this almost as a dress rehearsal.

No, you can only apply that kind of heavy handed "democracy" if you have the will to apply it to all - or not at all. Halfway measures and picking and choosing smacks of politically expedient hypocricy.

Where Andrew Gilligan went wrong was using the term "government" in his broadcast. It was quite clear in the evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that concerns over the 45 minutes were raised in the Defence Intelligence Staff, dismissed by those higher up in the DIS, never seen by the full JIC, and certainly never seen by anyone in 10 Downing Street. Even Dr Brian Jones’ section thought it should go in the Dossier, however.

But "Civil servants included a claim in the Dossier that other civil servants thought might be a bit dodgy" doesn’t make much of a story and doesn’t generate a complaint from Alistair Campbell, so Gilligan reported something else.

I would also like to know what type of action you think may have induced the Serbian regime to desist in their policy of genocide against yet another ethnic group? Put in more UN troops and watch as yet again they can merely wring their hands while the paramilitaries butcher civilians? More resolutions to ignore.

Rather than now being reduced to the stone age the Serbs have now returned to at least a halfway representive democracy. Of course since you argue that politicians should not govern perhaps an monsterous demagogue such as Milosovic would be preferable to you.

The intelligence on Iraq was wrong, so now it was a "humanitarian" cause, like Serbia.

Suddenly became a pressing issue after 30 years (or whatever it was) of Saddam’s rule did it? how convenient. How long before it happens again? Iraq for the Iraqi’s, oh sure. Just as long as the US and Britain get the oil.