Doesn’t this sort of thing call into question that statement?

“Everyone” did no such thing, with respect to nuclear capacity. Secret services do not publish newsletters about their findings: they communicate them to their governments. The governments of France and Germany did not talk or act like Saddam had nukes (and being geographically closer to Iraq had more reason to worry if that were the case. In countries with pro-war governments such as the UK and Denmark and even the US there was a spate of unprecedented leaks in late 2002early 2003 from current and former members of the intelligence services displeased with their governments’ presentation and interpretation of the available evidence.

Chemical weapons are another matter entirely; the surprise at not finding even one chemical warhead genuinely surprised most observers, including the Coalition which, faced with a paucity of evidence for real WMD in 2003, decided to fudge the issue by broadening the definition of WMD to include first chemical and biological weapons, and when no sign of even these turned up, the desire to manufacture them at some unspecified point in the future.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Now, by the strict rules of logic that does not imply that the US won’t invade if Saddam does disarm, but it certainly implies it by the normal rules of discourse.

It is very important to recognize the cost/benefit analysis here. If an analyst or diplomat or politician were to say Saddam might have WMD’s, and were to be proven wrong, there would have been little or no career consequences, as we have seen. OTOH, if an analyst, without absolute certainty, were to say Saddam had no WMD’s, and then WMD’s were discovered or even used, a career would likely have been ended.

This explains why “everyone” predicted WMD’s, and an even marginally useful press should have noted this bias.

Fortunately the legality of an action has minimal impact upon its morality.

One additional lyaer of deception here—admittedly one that can’t really be laid at Bush/Blair’s feet—is the inherently dishonest nature of the term WMD. nuclear weapons in Saddam’s hands might be a legitimate basis for war; chemical weapons—which haven’t been used on a batlefield in 90 years for a reason—would certainly not be.

Most of this dispute has the pro-war side treating the act of giving the reasons for war as like the act of giving a casual friend advice on a basically irrelevant matter – as long as you don’t knowingly lie it’s all OK. And some of the anti-war side, either out of politeness or because they agree, say that no no it’s more like the act of a company director giving advice on a small financial matter. I’m sure much of that is that people are in this case certain that Bush and Blair don’t meet even that lower standard. But there is some interest I think in getting the standard right.

Of course my rule will mean that some well-intentioned politicians will lose their jobs through no fault of their own. But when we go to war based on false reasons, many soldiers and civilians lose their lives through no fault of their own, so I’m not going to grieve for the unemployed pollies.

Kay is fond of saying that sort of thing. He was wrong and wants to believe everyone else was too. But back in October 2002, Putin embarassed Blair by saying “Russia has not in its possession any trustworthy data that could support the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Blair replied: “You will have to eat your words.”

Not everyone was wrong. But that is not the important point. In most parliamentary democracies it is a serious matter to mislead the legislature, even if this is done without making statements which can be shown to have been lies. Blair certainly misled the House of Commons about the quality of the evidence.

Err, isn’t war for regime change illegal?

Perhaps the people’s peer Elizabeth Wilmshurst will tells us.