Any time, in the light of the current evidence, we examine our previous beliefs to see how far they may have been accurate or not, and to inquire into what the possible motivation for actions carried out may have been, in a sense we are using hindsight. In setting up these inquiries, it is evident that the governments involved accept it as a necessary and useful thing to do.

If it were a matter of making judgements about people's actions on the basis of information which they did not know and could not have known, that would be a wrong use of hindsight. That can never be justified, and I do not think I have ever done it in this discussion. However, teasing out what in fact was known at the time, and what inferences could reasonably have been drawn from what was known - that is the very heart of the matter.

...................................

("Trite" - "commonplace, hackneyed, worn out" is how my dictionary defines it. Well, we could all throw that word at each other, just because we find ourselves in disagreement, but I can't see how it adds anything useful to the argument.)