First leaked to reporter Michael Smith of the Telegraph in London, the memos make it clear that Washington planned on war whether there was a legal reason or not. They also show that while Britain was planning to join the coalition, they wanted a legal reason -- regime change was not one -- such as a new UN resolution, evidence of WMD, an assault on a neighboring state; they even proposed humanitarianism as a reason.

 "The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"The Defense Secretary [Rumsfeld] said that the US had already begun 'spikes of [military] activity' to put pressure on the regime."

"There is no legal pretext for invading Iraq and that one must be found."

"There was no greater threat that Saddam would use chemical or biological weapons now than in the recent past."

"Regime change had no basis in international law."

"There was no evidence that Iraq was backing international terrorism that might justify an action based on self-defence, as in Afghanistan."

"I think there is a real risk that the Administration underestimates the difficulties. They may agree that failure isn’t an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it."

"Wolfowitz said that it was absurd to deny the link between terrorism and Saddam."

"Hostility towards the Iraqi National Congress was in reality hostility toward Chalabi ... Bute [sic] had a good record in bringing high-grade defectors out of Iraq. The CIA stubbornly refused to recognize this."

"Of itself, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law."

"The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite is to invade and impose a new government. But this could involve nation building over many years."

i) There must be an armed attack upon a State or an attack must be imminent;

ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable;

iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack."

A long, cautious, discussion of the legal problems of invading Iraq.

Ten days later, Goldsmith told Parliament that there were no problems; the various UN resolutions gave permission for the invasion. Goldsmith 2

US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community.

Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing.  To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that:

•the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for;

•it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).

"For Iraq, "regime change: does not stack up.   It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."