Craven de Kere wrote:
I do not agree with some of the email texts.
Well, I guess its kind of irrelevant what you or I think about Powell's argument, I mean, as far as the gist of this news story is concerned in any case. It's not like there's any drastic new insight in that mail - there were dozens of experts saying the same thing as Jonathan Powell back then. Thats how I ended up with my opinion, for one.
The "news" about this breaking story would be that even Blair's closest advisor told him in clear terms about it, and told him that his dossier didnt make a convincing case either, and yet Blair went out to Parliament pretending to have an intel case about a threat beyond doubt, anyway
. So its more like a Clinton kinda scandal I guess: its not about what he did but that he lied about it. People aren't upset at Blair for making a case for war per se, but for deceiving parliament + people to get his way about it.