In article om,
"John B" wrote:
David Boothroyd wrote:
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and
biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier
contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should
have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

OT, but is this some kind of attempt to smear Ming as "just as bad as
Labour" for believing what Mr Blair told everyone before the Iraq war?

No. It is a demonstration that the belief that Baathist Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction was reasonable and shared widely. It is therefore
irrational and ahistorical to claim that the only reason people believed
Iraq had WMD was that it was in the dossier.

While I understand (especially today of all days) that believing what
that lot say is a deeply unwise plan, I'm not convinced that their
mendacity was so clear four years ago that an opposition spokesman
would have been right to automatically assume our PM would take us to
war based on a tissue of lies.

No lies were told. The Prime Minister had been advised by the
intelligence agencies that Iraq had WMD, and believed it (not
surprisingly given that everyone else believed it as well), and
said to the public what he honestly believed in private. If that
analysis turned out to be wrong, it was not because the Prime
Minister was attempting to deceive.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.