further evidence as to why Tony Blair should be catapulted off no. 10 pronto is the following extract nicked off an article - itself an extract off a book by Robin Cook - on the guardian:
....
... When I asked him why we believed Saddam would not use these weapons against our troops on the battlefields, he surprised me by claiming that, in order to evade detection by the UN inspectors, Saddam had taken apart the shells and dispersed them -with the result that it would be difficult to deploy them under attack. Not only did Saddam have no weapons of mass destruction in the real meaning of that phrase, neither did he have usable battlefield weapons.
I put these points to the prime minister a couple of weeks later. The exchange is recorded in my diary on March 5 2003. Tony Blair gave me the same reply as John Scarlett, that the battlefield weapons had been disassembled and stored separately. I was therefore mystified a year later to hear him say he had never understood that the intelligence agencies did not believe Saddam had long-range weapons of mass destruction...
apols for the real lack of incisive in-depth analysis but the article itself is self explanatory. in fact , i've just placed an order on the book which i'm very sure may either not be made available at bookshop's over here. or ridiculously exhorbitantly priced.
as enscribed by the letter b @ July 12, 2004 04:14 PM