Replies

Read between the lines:

The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.
Motivation

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."
If Saddam wasn't armed, then why the need to disarm him?
One more nail against the left.

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
This actually is a little damning against the credibility of this document as Saddam has been in breach by firing on US aircraft since 92. We didn't need the UN aircraft to prove this breach.

"It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam s WMD,
Again, I thought Bush knew WMDs didn't exist..

This is like the Downing Street memo.. if taken in full context, it actually defends our side.

Additionally, U2s don't fly with fighter cover. They fly high enough that they don't need it. Also, Hussein had already been firing on US and British aircraft in the no-fly zone very regularly. Why involve a U2?

*****President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."*****

This actually is a little damning against the credibility of this document as Saddam has been in breach by firing on US aircraft since 92. We didn't need the UN aircraft to prove this breach.

Excellent point. But it gets even worse for this story: how exactly would fighters provide "cover" for a U2? The U2 operates at altitudes that are in excess of what fighters can fly! This story makes no sense at all.