Not unusually for a piece from the agenda driven, sensationalist, Daily Mail, the headlines and first paragraphs rely on the probability that most readers won't study the detail, understand it, or even read their own piece to the end.

That the advice from the AJ on the legality of us joining the Americans was complicated, mixed and borderline is well known, and was when it was given. That's nothing new. Nor, I suspect, is it so unusual in such circumstances for a "for your eyes only" communication to be expected to be destroyed after reading, to ensure it did not reach other eyes.

It was my understanding at the time that Blair was trying to reign back Bush and get him to adopt another strategy. Which is why it went to the UN. It is also my belief that a secret agreement was reached between Churchill and Roosevelt when the USA joined us in WW2, that committed the UK to supporting the USA, when requested to, in its military endeavours in specific areas of mutually shared interest. Including the Middle East.

If true, and it's only a hunch based on observation, then Blair was between a rock and a hard place.

Not unusually for a piece from the agenda driven, sensationalist, Daily Mail, the headlines and first paragraphs rely on the probability that most readers won't study the detail, understand it, or even read their own piece to the end.

That the advice from the AJ on the legality of us joining the Americans was complicated, mixed and borderline is well known, and was when it was given. That's nothing new. Nor, I suspect, is it so unusual in such circumstances for a "for your eyes only" communication to be expected to be destroyed after reading, to ensure it did not reach other eyes.

It was my understanding at the time that Blair was trying to reign back Bush and get him to adopt another strategy. Which is why it went to the UN. It is also my belief that a secret agreement was reached between Churchill and Roosevelt when the USA joined us in WW2, that committed the UK to supporting the USA, when requested to, in its military endeavours in specific areas of mutually shared interest. Including the Middle East.

If true, and it's only a hunch based on observation, then Blair was between a rock and a hard place.

There were 44 petitions drawn up, all basically calling for the same thing - to stop Blair getting knighted.

All have been rejected despite having gained more than 1 million signatures. Travesty.

[Link]

My explanation for that is in my final paragraph.

I was no more "in a position to know what was going on" than anyone else outside the cabinet. We won't know until their papers are released. What I remember is analysis at the time from a variety of experts that suggested this was the likely explanation, rather than the sensationalist newspaper headlines.

As I will be long gone before the whole truth finally is revealed I will never have the pleasure of knowing it.

If that is pompous then you use a different dictionary to mine. Both though will have a definition of rudeness. Might I suggest you look up its meaning.

I double checked my dictionary entry for pompous and it was appropriate, thanks for asking