MGOH:

In relation to this please do not come out with such trite pronouncements coloured by hindsight.

Your first point the assessments relating to how dangerous Saddam's regime was came from what the UN said he had. What had to be evaluated was what he could be doing to enhance his ability to use it.

There were no distortions, one of the things that the JIC assessment stated that they believed that Iraq had reactivated development programmes relating to delivery systems - That was accurate UMOVIC found them on advice from British Intelligence. As for, "..the intelligence reports were distorted so as to strengthen the case for going to war without delay" - dossier prepared in September 2002, kick-off, March 2003 - some "without delay" there Kevin.

The affable Dr. Blix reported lack of Iraqi co-operation right up until his last report to the UN Security Council - Iraq's full and active co-operation from day one was requirerd under the terms of Resolution 1441. The weapons inspectors were not given the time because they were being given the run around.

The ensuing war was caused solely by Saddam & Co., playing silly buggers by dragging his feet when it came to meeting the demands of the international community.

To those who were against the war, I would suggest that the good Dr. Blix should be asked to explain why he himself was not a bit more forthcoming and forthright in his pronouncements at an earlier stage. He had been instrumental in writing the UNSCOM report of January 1999 stating that Iraq possessed WMD, he was the guy in charge of UNMOVIC, charged by the UNSC to ensure Iraqi compliance. Then last summer Dr. Blix then comes out with the opinion that he didn't think Saddam had any WMD. If I was the good Dr, I'd be keeping my head very much bellow the parapet, because I feel as though he is going to be in for a right slating before this is all over.