It is now clear that the reasons given for the US-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq were false. The question now is whether George W. Bush and his faithful ally Tony Blair were misled by their intelligence agencies, or deliberately cooked the evidence to justify the invasion and the ouster of Saddam Hussein

According to US pollsters, the average American still doesn’t care. He is pleased that an unquestionably brutal dictator has been overthrown and is still quietly proud of this distant exercise of US military might. It is a very different situation in Britain. Left-wing members of the British Parliament had strong doubts about both the legality and wisdom of invading Iraq. Their support was only won when Blair gave them unequivocal assurances of the imminent danger of Saddam’s weaponry. After first insisting weapons of mass destruction would be found, the Blair government insists that evidence of programs for weapons of mass destruction will be found. Clearly Saddam developed and used lethal nerve agents, and also sought to create a nuclear weapon. But had those programs continued up until March this year?

The clear hope for the British government is that they can use documents relating to the original programs, to prove that they had. But given the falsehoods on which Coalition policy has been based — and we should not forget the forged uranium order from Niger — we should not hold our breath.

The Blair government in Britain is therefore in trouble, with its own MPs, with two ministers who resigned in protest at the war and with the general public at large. Indeed Blair’s own position as premier is now into question. Unlike the average American, the average Briton is not much pleased that the British military has overwhelmed a markedly weaker enemy.

The rising political storm around Tony Blair may well in time engulf Bush, especially as the cost of the Iraqi occupations continues to rise both in US lives and billions of dollars. Democrat presidential hopeful Howard Dean is already challenging the Bush administration over its honesty of purpose in launching the war. Dean must be calculating that even if the Americans don’t much care at the moment, further deterioration in US control in Iraq will begin to change their minds and he will then be able to identify himself as the first politician to cry “Foul!”

As the case against Blair strengthens along with calls for an independent enquiry into what the British government really knew, so the White House position will also weaken and demands for congressional investigation strengthen. If the Blair administration is found to have rigged intelligence then it will indicate strongly that the Bush White House was implicated as well. The discrediting of one will therefore mean the discrediting of the other.