[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: Point of order my dear Cerek - nothing diabolical,but just an inconsistancy that I noted when reading your post. The article of origin (for this thread) clearly states (and requests) that Blair should depart from his stance of certainty that the Iraq Survey Group WILL find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If Blair is thus so categorically confident then why would you lay laim that he has apologised for the falseness of intelligence that he still clearly believes in. I am similarly not aware that Bush has ever categorically admitted that his intel was wrong. I think that it is generally leaking through that the stories look more and more unreliable. Not that I think it necessary for the leader of the country to say we got it wrong either - just pointing out that I don't think Teflon Tony or wee George have actually done so.

OK, my mistake for misreading the article. I didn't realize that Blair was still categorically confident that WMD's would be found in Iraq. I think the possibility of them being found still exists, but I also think there is an equal chance that none will be found (because they were either moved before the war or didn't exist in the first place).

As for the Intelligence sources, there have been several stories circulated through the media claiming the stance regarding WMD's was based on Intelligence Info that has - in hindsight - been found to be wrong. You are correct that President Bush hasn't held a formal press conference to announce the Intel was faulty and apologize for it, but the "leaking" of these stories is a way of explaining why the Administration's certainty of WMD's was wrong.

Will Bush give a public apology for the mistake? Not in an election year. Should Bush give an apology after the election?? Not necessarily. While WMD's may have been touted as the primary reason for the invasion, it was NOT the ONLY reason (I believe the official list has 17 items, IIRC). Even if they were wrong about the existence of WMD's, I think they were still justified if they legitimately believed the threat of the WMD's. But even if we completely remove WMD's from the equation, there is no denying that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power.