I have the feeling that Tony Blair would feel happier making the moral case that Saddam must go. He could then lay more stress on the atrocious character of his regime, the plight of the Iraqi people, the aspirations of the Kurds and - perhaps most importantly - the opportunity to turn the tide against despotism in the wider Middle East.
Okay, here's the deal with the whole "moral case" for ousting Saddam. No one questions that Saddam is a terrible person and a murderous dictator, but none of the reasons cited by Bush, Blair and others are terribly new--indeed, they're things the entire world seems to have decided it could live with for at least a decade, including, of course, Bush the Elder. So the question remains: why is it suddenly soooooooo important that we act now, and to such an extent? I predict that Hitchens won't address that question either.
But as Prime Minister of a nation which has a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations, he is obliged to be somewhat legalistic.
It'd be so much easier if he were a dictator...that pesky obligation of the leader of a democratic nation to present a case to the people!
It must be obvious to anyone who can think at all that the charges against the Hussein regime are, as concerns arsenals of genocidal weaponry, true.
It's obvious, so we don't need no steenkin' evidence.