andyl

One of the key things to have emerged is that the AG seems quite clear in his opinion that to go to war seeking regime change would be unlawful. This presumably explains why WMDs rather than regime change were cited at the time, despite growing evidence of increased Iraqi co-operation and a lack of WMDs. Two things then happened. No WMDs were found to the surprise of precisely nobody. The argument then switched to 'isn't it great that we've got rid of 'Saddam'. My interpretation is that the Govt knew precisely what it was doing in ignoring Hans Blix and others because it knew it could not justify, in law, military action for regime change. So the only defence Blair has is that they had to pursue the WMD angle in order to achieve the real objective. But that defence has more holes in it than Rab C's vest.