Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.
Blair... claimed that Saddam's WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. (WDM we now know did not even exist). Blair wrote, 'We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence [hah convenient]. I and other ministers
have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority.'
Hutton via John Scarlett... 'There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all.'
At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.
Blair either mislead Parliament about the 45 minutes thing applying to WMD... it was a complete lie, OR he lied about having been briefed in detail.
Ha ha... proof from your precious Hutton report that Blair lied in relation to a key element of his argument for going to war - lol
So when Briefed in detail Blair said that the 45 minutes related to weapons of mass destruction he would already have known that it actually related to small arms and not WMD. Either that, or he lied about being briefed in detail and being satisfied as to his briefing's authority.
That is just one small thing that came out during Hutton... how many other things lie under the surface of the DISGUSTING manipulation towards war and bloodshed.
Other little tidbits...
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/29/leaked-uk-report-supplies-more-proof-that-bush-blair-lied-in-run-up-to-war/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.htmlPerhaps you will now explain HOW being Bush's Poodle has been a benefit to our economy to the extent that it was worth all that bloodshed?