jaquandor explains it all
Byzantium's Shores keeps its eye on the ball with regard to the continuing arguments about prewar intelligence.
[T]his wasn't a case of bad intelligence. It was a case of bad intelligence that was identified as bad intelligence, and then was used anyway by people who either should have known it was bad intelligence and were thus inept, or did know it was bad intelligence and were thus deceitful. I'm always amazed at the sheer amount of smoke-and-mirrors foolery that can erupt around something that's really not that complicated.
I give Tony Blair full marks for passion and eloquence, but Jaqandor's point is spot-on. It isn't a matter of history "forgivng" him and Bush if they were wrong about the threat they portrayed Saddam as posing. As many are pointing out across the the blogosphere -- for example, the just-back-from Europe Matthew Yglesisas -- the humanitarian benefits of removing Saddam are not in dispute. But Blair and Bush didn't base their case on humanitarian intervention, they based it on claims of an Iraqi threat that are appearing increasingly threadbare day by day.
Speaking of which, this morning's op-ed by David Ignatius in the WaPo wonders why we haven't heard more from several acptured Iraqi officials -- unless their statements would undermine Bush's and Blair's contentions.
History may forgive Blair and Bush for launching an unprovoked war to depose Saddam. History should not forgive them for deceiving their citizens in order to do so.
Update: John Dean examines the case for war Bush outlined in the State of the Union speech and concludes that the evidence seems to support hardly any of it at all, let alone the bogus uranium claim. Dean -- who knows the ramifications of such a statment -- calls for a special prosecutor.
(via a CalPundit comment thread)