Mary, thanks for the update. I wasn't sure how the latest info about the British Plan to fabricate info fit into this. So the final report is due out next month. Once this is released what is the next step? Does Lord Hutton issue any recommendations based upon his findings? Or does Parliament then take the findings and come up with it's own recommendations?

Help me understand what forces in England would be interested in promoting war in Iraq and PNAC. I need a little help understanding the geopolitical forces at work here. Thanks

"it appears the effort to shape public opinion was quite successful as the citizens of Poland were some of the few in Europe that supported the war"

Yes and no. The Polish government supports the war but the majority of the population does not. Whether the political leadership will pay a price depends on how many more Poles die in Iraq.

emal, The Hutton report will be published on Jan 12th. What happens next is up in the air, but I've seen three predictions that are worth considering:

1) If Lord Hutton believes that Blair personally was involved with the steps that led to Dr. Kelly's death, then one report says it would very difficult for him to stay on and they thought he would resign.

2) Another article speculated that Geoff Hoon would be forced to resign. This is interesting because Hoon's part in this inquiry is under a spotlight right now and he has expressed dissatisfaction that his written testimony cannot be released as he believes his evidence in the court did not put him in a very good light.

3) Most articles say that Blair will have a very difficult time, but they don't predict he will leave.

Certainly the BBC is bracing for some fallout for themselves. This could be bad if Murdoch uses this to gain more control of the British media....

I also saw an article (but can't find it now) that the Blair administration will see the report before it is made public.

----
TAK, Blair's motives in starting a war against Iraq are not necessarily the same as the PNAC -- there were so many reasons for forcing the war on the part of the neocons here (including getting rid of Saddam, controlling the oil, making a peaceful middle East by frightening the terrorists and anti-Americans so much they'll stop causing trouble, wanting to show what a powerful army we had, showcasing the free market by making Iraq a premier example, etc.) that it would be hard to pin it down to any one reason. The only thing for sure is there wasn't any evidence that Saddam had extensive WMD (and the neocons always said this was to prevent him from getting it) and he didn't present any real threat to us. I think it was Rummy that said they used the "WMD" excuse because it made it easier to sell to the reluctant public.

For Blair, some of the Brits that discussed the drive to war beforehand said that one thing about Blair is that he is an evanglical Christian and believed that Saddam should be removed based on his deep religious convictions. Whether this is true or not, the fact that MI6 was already starting to plant stories to justify military force in 1998 means that he was probably working with those in the US who were also lobbying for using force. It is true that Blair had no problem lying to bring about war (he probably thought about it as bringing the cleansing fire).