Speaker by Various Artists

So, is the Butler report "half empty" or "half full"?

To some in Britain it is half full of damning evidence against a blatant spin campaign by Tony Blair and his cronies to take the country to war on the back of some dodgy advice from the intelligence community. To others, it is half empty of blame, it doesn't expose a "smoking gun" to oust the Government and, therefore, let's all go and watch the golf.

Regarding the latter argument you need look no further than the Prime Minister himself. In an initially unapologetic tone, he told Parliament:

This report, like the Hutton inquiry, like the report of the ISC (intelligence and security committee) before it and of the FAC (foreign affairs select committee) before that, has found the same thing: no one lied; no one made up the intelligence; no one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services; everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end.

Keep those words "good faith" in mind as we continue...

In a calculated move - flagged during his appearance in front of a committee of senior MPs last week - Blair soon conceded more ground on the weapons of mass destruction issue.

I have to accept: as the months have passed it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy. The second issue is therefore this: even if we acted in perfectly good faith, is it now the case that in the absence of stockpiles of weapons ready to deploy the threat was misconceived and therefore the war was unjustified? I have searched my conscience - not in a spirit of obstinacy but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know - in answer to that question. And my answer would be that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was indeed less certain, less well founded than was stated at the time.

Goodness. Is Blair doing a flip-flop and taking a bite out of humble pie? In short - no, not really. He immediately countered by saying:

But I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world, is a better and safer place without Saddam.

Same old Blair, same old rhetoric.

There have been protests, hundreds of newspaper articles and editorials written and a resignation from his Cabinet (Robin Cook) over his basis for war. They didn't want him to come back later and say, "Well, we got that WMD thing wrong but at least Saddam's gone!" (Those who think there's any point in telling him I told you so, please do so now...).

And I just can't see how he can peddle the "the world's a safer place" line and feel like he can get away with it. I don't even know how he says it with a straight face. Who feels safer? Commuters taking the Tube and buses every day? Passengers on international flights? The businessmen paying foreign mercenaries thousands of dollars a day to protect them in Baghdad? Or D, none of the above?

Back to his Parliamentary statement, it was Mr "Safer World" Blair that said for any mistakes he'd made in the lead-up to war, mistakes he'd made in good faith, though, "I of course take full responsibility". Which, following a report which didn't blame anyone, is, without doubt, totally gutless. A throw-away line.

Tory leader Michael Howard, who takes the "half full" approach, has certainly grown in stature since I left England. I remember his brave effort in the Commons in the face of a whitewash Hutton Report, still managing to sound credible and forthright following what basically amounted to the Blair government's ascendancy to heaven.

This time he had more to go on and didn't Blair know it. Instead of looking astonished, like he did after the Hutton Report when Howard didn't apologise, Blair was hunched over paying VERY close attention to a document on his knee (perhaps it was the Hutton Report).

Howard reminded everyone of Blair's unshakeable certainty of the threat from Iraq, his almost religious zeal when discussing WMD. He accused the Prime Minister of turning the "qualified judgements" of the intelligence agencies into "unqualified certainties".

Howard sought to undermine Blair's flagging credibility further: "I hope we will not face in this country another war in the foreseeable future, but if we did and you identified the threat, would the country believe you?" In many ways the intelligence services got it wrong, he said, but he questioned why Blair "chose to leave out those caveats, qualifications and cautions".

It was the battle of the heavyweights the Tory party envisaged when they ousted the ineffectual Iain Duncan Smith. Rather than having a "yee-haw!", Howard Dean moment at the report's findings, Michael Howard managed to sound level-headed and clearly defined, whilst being at his cutting best. Ominously for Blair, he is starting to sound like someone worthy of leading the country.

(Meanwhile, Liberal Democrats leader Charles Kennedy seems to have lost the plot. After four inquiries failed to finger Blair for triggering an unwarranted war, he called for another one. Go figure.)

So, to answer the original question, Was the report half empty or half full? Why, it is both, of course.

In some ways it is full; full of things the Hutton report was expected to, but didn't, find. Intelligence was flawed and misused, and the case for war was stretched to the "outer limits" (can we say "sexed up" yet?). The Government should not have included the 45-minute claim in its dossier. Crucial caveats to water down the case for war were not publicised.

Yet there is also emptiness. After all those findings it was empty of blame, which only serves to prove how empty these inquiries are - which may have been what Blair had in mind all along. Give a career bureaucrat a brief and a couple of million pounds and he may find fault, oh yes, but blame is a hard thing to come by. (Although an article in The Independent said, "it is believed the inquiry team felt Mr Blair was ultimately responsible but decided not to say so in its report.").

The report is perfectly balanced - there are enough scraps for both sides to feed on and while it smacks the Government with one hand, it massages with the other. I say it is too balanced - there's nothing to shift anyone from either the pro- or anti-war camps. So what was the point?

You could argue that if a blunder at a private company were put into the hands of an independent inquiry and some fault was found, then heads would roll. But don't blame poor Lord Butler. He was probably just acting in good faith.

I would love to be reading a copy of The Independent on Sunday this weekend. The paper has been lambasting the Prime Minister about his reasons for going to war for years, months before (during, and after) the Anglo-American alliance went to war with Iraq. It has had exhaustive reports, interviews, and devoted entire front pages to editorials in a full frontal assault on the government's justification for invading Iraq. I imagine it will not be crowing from the rooftops, though. It may, however, sadly reflect on the cost, mainly in lives, of that flawed decision and call for some accountability.

Whereas it's been chilly lately and whereas we're new parents and all (more on that later), therefore we've been hibernating round at the statey, lately. And yes, we've been catching up on a bit of the telly. It's a warm, forgiving kind of medium that's always there, seldom very interesting and therefore unlikely to disappoint. I like the level of interactivity it involves, too.

You don't like it? Surf. Still no good? Turn it off. This talk of interactive TV as somehow being more than that - frankly - makes me nervous. But not as nervous as Alain de Botton makes me. The very name makes me wonder if there's something wrong with me.

It may be a sign of my advancing years (first child and 40 on the near horizon), but I've learned to hate writing about stuff I hate. I used to prefer it: giving something a good panning always made me feel superior (to the subject of my derision, if nothing else). Now, I just find it a drag. Being judgemental just involves so much correctness: it's not worth the time it takes to articulate it.

And that's why I think I've got the jump on Alain de Botton (ha ha). He's simply no fun. You have status anxiety. There is no escape, only distraction. Admit it, you can think of at least 3 people better off of than you, right now, before you reach the end of this sentence. Forget it. Do something else. Go out and have fun. Steal candy from a baby, abuse your elderly neighbour, indulge in workplace bullying, whatever. Write a blog. Alain de Botton is the smart set equivalent to the page 36 chocolate recipe, right opposite the page 37 fad diet.

If I read her correctly, Jane Clifton suggested that one of his contributions to philosophy was to be sledged by such diverse tomes as the Guardian and The Australian. Apparently, de Botton actually performed a philosophical service by enabling those journalists to indulge their own knowledge and insights, while they simultaneously (and correctly) discarded his. Really, it's too weird.

So anyway, the last time I was here I was about to have a baby, or at least she of the ugh boots was. Bongo turned up two weeks later than the Expected Date of Delivery. This - they say - is totally normal, a view completely contradicted by the fact that one more day and we'd have been off to National Womens'.

But no. Contractions came at three a.m. Out of bed at 6.30. Fireside brekky at 7.30, and from there we do not shift, eating and drinking all day. Things start heating up at about 3 p.m. Into the birth pool once or twice, best mate around to make the tea (and keep that fire stoked), midwives, buckets, towels & hot water yadda yadda yadda and Bongo showed up at 7.15, just in time for the neighbours to get away for NZ Idol (yeah, I didn't feel like writing for a while afterwards).

The best advice in the whole thing (other recent parents may empathise for the amount of advice we had to absorb) was to light the fire before doing anything else. Amazing! Guys take note, just because your beloved partner's every synapse, bone and fibre is convulsed to breaking point under the forces of parturition, there's no reason not to indulge a little bit of the old romance! Keep the lighting low, for God's sake. The last think she wants is to be overly visible, or to be distracted by having to look at anything else. Stinky Jim's Sideways collections were useful too, providing just the right kind of laid-back noise you can really RRROOOOOOOOOAAARRR!!!to. God help mothers who don't have the vocal training she of the ugh boots had. God help the neighbours of those who do.

Big ups also to the Balmoral Midwives' Collective. Guys take another note: during pregnancy, your partner will appreciate the presence of strong, intelligent, chatty, well humoured, and gutsy women who like nothing more than helping other women thrive in the most womanly process of their lives. "Are you going to light the fire?" she asked, glancing eagerly at the fireplace. "Huh?" said we. "It's a sort of a - tradition" she whispered, keen as hell. Take a bow, gals. They write things in your Plunket book like "3 days: lovely, lusty, and loquacious. Breastfeeding like a pro." You can't buy that kind of support. Really, you can't. The government provides it free. Amen.

Which is more than it does in the business of paid parental leave for men, or for women who are self employed. If she of the ugh boots had established a company on the day she left her job a year previous, and then employed herself (under her own company directive), rather than simply freelancing under her own name, then by the time of the birth she would have qualified for the paid parental leave, and even transferred some or all of same to - ahem - me, if she'd wanted. But on paper, she didn't qualify, even though she'd been doing about the same amount of work for about the same amount of money as she had when, as a full time employee, she would have qualified. Seems grossly unfair from our lookout.

I know it's kind of old news now, but "Interesting" is the word I would use to describe Grant Dalton's success in securing sufficient sponsorship to get Team New Zealand to the 2007 America's Cup. It would also describe the Government's decision to contribute $30m odd to that sponsorship package. I don't know how they figure its value, but it is important to remember that as a sponsorship, it is only partly about the sport.

Here's what makes the A.C. a truly unique event, unlike any other sporting event. It's not the money or professionalism; all sports suffer that. It's not the ego; don't go there. It's not the apparently ambiguous status as a sport at all; of course it's sport - it's just not on a paddock, which tends to confuse some people. What makes the A.C. unique is that it is the only international sporting event - to my knowledge - that the winner (i.e. the defender) gets sole right to host (I suppose it would be gentlemanly of me to invite challenges to that assertion).

So if the government decides to join the action, its contribution has to be set at a level that will both help build the team's budget to a competitive level, but not be so great as to offset whatever gains flow from winning it. But remember, winning it also means defending it, which also means funding it again. How long does this process carry on? I see the AC featuring in the 2043 budget ... I see continuous victories between now and then ... I see a nation enslaved to the world's 0.05% wealthiest elite in 4 year cycles ... I see ngati whatua cleaning up on the royalties for the team births at the Viaduct and the space used over the seabed to hold the racing ... I see a sponsorship deal ...

Of course, they could always throw - say - half the government's A.C. allocation at the Auckland festival or AK05 or whatever it's called, which has the distinct advantage of not having to be won by anyone in order for it to be hosted again and again, ad. infinitum. Seems like a steal.

Currently accumulating all the baby sitting points possible to try and make it along to a film or two, now it's July. Haven't even scoped the programme properly yet, although looking forward to new doco by Florian. My only tip: ignore every English speaking movie that's already won an award.

You know how you one day have a word explained to you, then all of a sudden hear it everywhere? It's almost as if a word like 'schnurgle' was invented in some vast conspiracy, because from that second you learn it, that little bugger will be sneaking into ads, TV spots with informed experts, stranger's conversations in line at the movies, and especially, between pissed-off office drones on the Tram.

'Schnurgle', I'm informed, is that smell you can only get from peoples armpits on public transport.

Now, luckily, I'm six-four so this has never really been an issue for me. Which would in all likelihood make me the schnurgler, and not the schnurglee. Nonetheless, I have many times seen that grimace of shock that overtakes some poor punter when they buy their tram ticket and turn around to find themselves face to damp pore with that rather inviting groove between my pectorals and deltoids while I hold onto a rail.

The most usual way to spare people from displaying their 'schnurgle mask' is to fight your way to a seat and keep the arms down (granny, bugger off with your imaginary 'arthritis'), or grasp uprights a low as possible (no madam, I wasn't groping your ass). Alternatively you can put your arms around the waist or shoulder of the person next to you for support, but my past attempts to turn public transport into a vast conga-party have always failed. Surprisingly.

After several years of trying different anti-stench unguents, sprays, sticks, therapies, diets and razors I simply gave up. Now I spare the public by either working from home or walking to where I have to go. I would drive, but that mint Falcon XD out there becoming less mint by the day costs a goddamn fortune to run. And that would be thanks to a particularly famous no-doubt-schnurgler out there named, appropriately, Bush. On stinking hot days, such as the 44.1 degrees here in Melbourne in the summer of '03, I'll still take the public transport and just schnurgle like I have to, which is an tragedy.

Actually I lie. On that 44.1 degree day I went to the only pub in the neighbourhood with air-conditioning.

The great thing about Melbourne is the inner-city retreats. I'm maybe half-hours walk from downtown, which is just about enough to sober you up a bit on the way home, and twenty from Melbourne University. And walking is no hassle because the nearest real slopes are an hours drive from here.

I was talking with the housemate last night and we were comparing pubs in the area. North Carlton is starting to gentrify a wee bit, but there's still pubs with great sounds nearby. The Empress has music almost every night. Then, for the swanky there's the Fitzroy star (which is kind of in North Fitzroy), for the normal there's the Tramways. The Great Northern does famous cheesy Chicken Parmies, the Brandon does the most insane bingo nite, and the Kent is for wankers and 'jogger-pushers' (those three wheel pram thingies). The Parkview is just plain dodgy, but open really late, the Lomonde is actually in Brunswick but does the most amazing music on Sunday afternoons. I saw a band do Spanish-polka fusion there. Weird in the most amazing way. The Pinnacle is apparently pretty good, but I haven't been there, and the list goes on and on.
Meanwhile, in food there's at least two great pizza places (and some crap ones), there's a decent burger place, maybe a dozen restaurants, some of them very nice, cheapish Asian food of a couple of varieties (none of which compares to Richmond Vietnamese), most all of the pubs do at least passable meals, and of course, kebabs.

It's hard to say exactly why there's so much variety here. You could put it down to there being more money around, but I lived in Richmond and that's hardly Beverly Hills. I also lived in Camberwell, a very wealthy 'burb, and there were restaurants, but not half the types. Maybe you can put it down to the three million people in an area roughly the size of Auckland, but Carlton is hardly more crowded than Grey Lynn or Ponsonby, and maybe the same distance from the city centre.

What it does remind me of is Wellington. Back when I lived in Te Aro valley people used to wander down out of the hills and to Bar Bodega or to Cuba Street because it was so accessible. The first thing I noticed when I moved to Auckland in '95 was that I had to have a car. Not only was everything miles from anywhere, the public transport was a bunchofass. Sure Wellington was dusty, windswept and grey in that particularly Wellington way, but the city itself has a 'compressed' and community feel of everyone living near each other.

The other thing is the costs. Auckland is expensive. There's three kiwis here in a smallish place where we pay a total of $250 a week in rent. Now, when I was working at a local restaurant pearl-diving to fund the edumacation I was pulling up to $600 a week. Long hours mind you, the Sunday shift was up to 15 hours with no breaks but for a 1 hour split, and no overtime but free food. That freed up a lot of money to spend keeping local students and artists employed pulling beers for me when I needed to escape the heat.

To be honest, I have to put the sheer variety down to immigrants coming here and becoming self-employed. Let's face it, if all you come to Australia with is a different diet then that better be your competitive edge in the labour market. Firstly you aren't taking jobs you're making them, and secondly you cop grief from 'the man'.

There's a lot of Italian and Greek food in this neighbourhood, but there's also a place called Zum Zum. If you've never tried North African food, like grilled halomi cheese on a pear and rocket salad, or lamb zatar sausages, find a Moroccan place today. There's more to North Africa than hashish and women in veils. There's also a completely vegetarian place over in North Fitzroy called the Moroccan Soup Bar. Soooooo many types of chickpea. So many.

What I'm really waiting for though is some Somali or Ethiopian food. There's a heap of refugees living near here, you see the women walking around all the time in these incredibly coloured, um, robes? Anyhow, I'm guessing that these sheilas are sitting on some fantastic stuff they only cook for their husbands, and the sooner they start barbequing goat or whatever the hell they do the better. A mate is Kenyan, and for a going-away party last year a bunch of us chipped in, bought and barbequed an entire bleater. If you've never eaten goat, go find one, marinate it with a recipe off the net, and cook it to medium rare in chops, kebabs and rissoles.

My question is how can you not want immigrants when they bring new experiences like that to your town? Sure, they'll freak you out when you first meet them, but hearing an African kid say, 'gidday' a purely Aussie accent is hilarious. The other great thing about Australia, or New Zealand for that matter, is the way that the presence of immigrants is never the basis for conflict with all the words connotations of violence. Instead, immigrants are all about ructions, in that familial-spat type meaning. And, commuters always give them the schnurgle mask, and I slip under the radar....

The one thing we're all going to have to watch out for is the danger of getting lost in apathy towards the events playing themselves out in the Middle East. I watched 1984 a couple of years back to bring myself up to speed on that old idea of totalitarianism and what really alarmed me was how much it still had relevance for contemporary events.

Mind you, I tried to read Brave New World a few weeks back and put it down out of frustration. Huxley is a bit too pretentious for my liking these days, all that 'free sex' seemed dated and trite, and his style bordered on condescending. It just goes to show, scoring 50% in School Cert. English doesn't mean you won't go on to write a Ph.D.

Thanks be to Bill Gates, hallowed be His name, He who gave us the sacred 'Spelling and Grammar' button.

I was doing the usual browse of opinion pieces this morning looking for a victim and read a column by Tony Parkinson of The Age. There's only one word for this kind of style, and that's rabid. Perhaps like another Parkinson I could name Tony is suffering the effects of age on his memory, because this reads nothing like what I've seen going on in Iraq.

Now, I'm sure everybody is sick and tired of being reminded that the real problem with Iraq is that the leaders of the Coalition lied to their constituents to justify a war they had already decided to wage. But lets haul out that hoary old chestnut one more time.

Back in 2002 it was not a question of the need to remove a ruthless dictator, it was about an impending threat. It was not about the beautiful blossoming of freedom across the world, in a casade of Muslim women skipping through the medina, hand in hand, their raven locks flying free, free in the breeze and their faces shining to the desert sun. "Let freedom reign", what a cheesy schmuck.

Iraq is all about the fact that the hawks used a series of pretences to invade a country, and are now using an entirely different set of pretences to justify it, while passing off the old pretences as 'intelligence failures'. Once again, lets not mince words. We were lied to.

In his attempt to demonise the insurgency, and indirectly any "lefties" who use the resistance to the Coalition as an indication of US folly, Parkinson selectively portrays information about how many innocents have been killed ('hundreds', but ignores the body count from the invasion itself), and deliberately avoids the real point about the executions of hostages, that they're wearing orange overalls, just like the victims in Abu Ghraib and Cuba.

And, he uses the phrase 'Islamic fascism'. I first heard this about three years ago from a right-winger I went to school with, and it's interesting that the term is starting to work its way into neo-conservative parlance. A more emotionally loaded term I can't imagine. The attempt to link 'fascism' with what is actually 'fundamentalism' is no so much misrepresentative as underhand. The US is a world centre of fundamentalism, where women obeying their husbands, discipline, and punishment are just fine if its good Christian values that underpin them.

One thing I've learnt from experience is that you can't reason with blokes like Parkinson. If you try to point this type of stuff out they'll simply label you as a sympathiser or apologist. Moreover, if you maybe point out that the executions started after 'those photos' were publicised they'll scream that it's no justification for 'butchery'. Like I say. Rabid.

So lets look at the bigger picture, which is where any reasonable person has to go, and where you can usually avoid neo-cons. Lets talk books (not bombs). Ok, this is misleading, because I think I might have read 1984, but can't remember it. I do remember the movie though.

If you haven't seen it, it's a frightening piss-take of totalitarianism, such as Soviet Russia. What really hits home is the way that people are told what to think, what to wear, the landscape is buggered, life is shit, etc etc. The lesson we get to take away is that freedom, free speech and buying stuff is 'good', while oppression, too much government, towing the line and no stuff to buy is 'bad'.

No one can really argue with that. Sure, maybe after the fall of the Soviets ordinary people in Russia might have been stating that they'd rather have a decent meal that be 'free', but hey, I'm sure things have come right since the bleak days of 1992. So now, apparently, Russians live in a world of democracy where you can be free, do what ever you want, go where you want, ra ra ra. And presumably if you have a pay packet that allows you to be, so do we.

But I'm beginning to question this. With freedom of information and the ability of ordinary people to publicise their ideas, in combination with governments, non-governmental organisations, corporations and new publicity methods like the internet there is a HUGE volume of 'stuff' on any particular topic. It is becoming more and more the case that being informed on anything at all is a major undertaking. I know in my own case that there is simply so much stuff I have to read that it is almost overwhelming.

So there's a new danger I reckon, and one that's more insipid than blanket totalitarianism. My concern is the exploitation of 'the people' through too much information (I've got a suspicion that this is Chomsky speaking, but I'm not sure. Readers, please enlighten me). What happened around the invasion of Iraq is that massive amounts of information were published every day, everywhere, and we were bombarded with 'news' about how, why and who was going to cop it.

Now, I don't mean to patronise the man in the street, but if I'm busy trying to make ends meet, handle a family, have a social life, and follow a team, how the hell am I going to achieve a balanced viewpoint on an issue as big as international relations? The truth is that people don't. Instead, people believe what they're told by the doyens of the media or academia. That little bit of trust that goes a long way.

The danger I'm talking about is that too much information is almost as bad as no information at all, because if it stills boils down to trusting what we're being fed, then we the public can still be exploited by corrupt leadership.

And I think that in Iraq we were, and still are.

Now, this leads me to question why people like Parkinson are so dedicated to seeing Iraq invaded and becoming a democracy? Shares in Halliburton? A deep conviction in the belief that liberal democracy is the zenith of human governance? Fundamentalist Christian crusading? Who knows.

All that is certain is that people like Parkinson represent a particular kind of 'culture warrior' who see Western values and norms as the most appropriate for everybody. And I meant everybody in the whole world. So when he's having a little rant and stereotyping Muslims as being willing to self-sacrifice, he conveniently overlooks common English concepts like 'martyr' and 'going to Heaven', that are pretty deeply ingrained in Christian societies. As if getting yourself nailed to a cross in the name of religion is 'normal'.

Inside liberal democracies these culture warriors rail against the decline of Christian morality, the influence of foreign ideas and make grandiose claims about the slide into anarchy if we allow minorities the right to be different. To my mind these people are really, really dangerous, and are the real source of world-wide opposition to liberal democracies.

This is in no way meant to be an apology for fanatics like the Taliban. These blokes still are butchers (the war in Afghanistan is far, far fromover). But, ignoring American gulags while going into a lather about Islam in the same way Cold War Warriors used to fly into hysteria about 'commies' is helping no-one. The public has to trust the media and political figures. Rabid commentary and posing Iraq as a battleground in the clash of civilisations is unbelievably irresponsible.

Assalam Alaikum.

Isn't it amazing what difference a year can make?

In April 2003 an upbeat, almost smarmy, Tony Blair said of those who doubted Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: "You and others will be eating some of your words." Late last night, however, it was Blair who was tearing up his quotes and shoving them into his mouth. He admitted to the Commons liaison committee of senior MPs that WMD "may never be found", while qualifying his remarks by saying they could have been hidden, removed or destroyed.

Yesterday's admission, came only two days after former UK envoy to Iraq Sir Jeremy Greenstock said there was "no doubt" WMD were not there, but that the reasons for taking action were "compelling"

This is in no way a complete victory for the anti-war lobby. Even they are realistic enough to realise Saddam Hussein - the tyrant, the guy who gassed his own people - probably did have something to hide. So it would be no surprise if some material outlawed by the UN was discovered in a hole somewhere in years to come. The lefties would be well-advised not to crow too loudly, then, about Blair's admission.

What is interesting, however, is the softening of his position - no doubt to avoid political points-scoring by the Tories in the lead-up to a general election likely to be called in the first half of next year.

Last June, Blair told the House of Commons that he had "no doubt" the Iraq Survey Group would find the clearest possible evidence of Saddam's WMD. He repeated his certainty, despite pressure over the quality of intelligence coming out of Iraq, the following month at the Commons liaison committee - yes, the same committee he made his begrudging comments to yesterday.

There have been a few embarrassing moments for Blair before this. Last Christmas he claimed the Iraq Survey Group had found "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles". When those comments were put to Paul Bremer, the US head of Iraq's Provisional Authority, he said: "I don‚t know where those words come from but that is not what (ISG chief) David Kay has said."

In February of this year he was guilted into launching an inquiry to establish why WMD have not been found in Iraq when Bush unexpectantly set up a similar bipartison commission in the US. The British inquiry will issue its report next Wednesday - though those expecting a report which may unseat Blair only need remind themselves of the much anticipated Hutton Report, which turned into a whitewash for the Government.

Blair is trying to limit the damage to his party from their close relationship with America, and to that end he took a seemingly hard line on the US's prison camp at Guantanamo Bay yesterday, telling the committee it was an "anomaly" and it must go. That's all well and good as a political line NOW, but Tell that to the guys who have just spent two years in chains and orange boiler suits...

As to Bush - whose own inquiry will conveniently not report back until next year, months after November's presidential election - in his Independence Day address he mentioned September 11 and al Qaeda (in relation to Afghanistan). In regards to Iraq he said: "Only last year, (Iraq) was under the control of a dictator who threatened the civilized world, who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He tormented and tortured the people of Iraq. Because we acted, Iraq today is a free and sovereign nation."

This is a guy who last March fervently stated that intelligence gathered by his government and others "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised".

Keeping on the Iraq theme, there have been some strange goings on in the last month regarding the link (or not) between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. The September 11 commission reported last month there was no collaborative relationship between the two, but Bush was firm there were "numerous contacts". It was only then that anti-war Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, revealed he was told by his intelligence services that Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the US. And if you thought THAT was weird, what about the fact that a week later a new document was uncovered showing Iraqi intelligence agents had contacted Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990s as part of an effort by Baghdad to work with enemies of the Saudi ruling family. Great timing...

It will be interesting to see if the war in Iraq and revelations about the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib hurt Bush's re-election chances (and those of Blair and Australia's John Howard for that matter!).

The release of two revealing books about Bush's administration have not done the president any favours. In Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack", it mentions that vice-president Dick Cheney was thought to have something of a "fever" about Iraq, while Richard A Clarke's "Against All Enemies" chronicles Bush's own order - on the day after September 11 - for Clarke, Bush's counter-terrorism czar, to find out if "Saddam did this" - despite healthy assurances to the contrary. But you would have to think that those books, plus Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11, will be effectively preaching to the converted (just look at this poll). Therefore, the deciding factor for many Americans may be the (much-improved) economy.

Just when the left-wingers' lips may be quivering a little, those who cried "Oil!" when Iraq was invaded may yet have something to crow about. I could have heard this wrong, but on Australia's ABC radio the other day I'm sure an American election statistician said only once in the past 20 years (Bill Clinton in 1996) has a US president been re-elected when oil prices have risen during their term of office. And despite apparent assurances by Saudi Arabia to control oil prices (outlined in Woodward's book) the prices at the pump are still sky high.

Huge queues at petrol stations and high oil prices were said to have contributed to Jimmy Carter's loss to Ronald Reagan in 1980, with petrol queues apparently playing a part in the demise of Gerald Ford in 1974. Will oil prices have the same effect on Bush in 2004? With Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry naming John Edwards as his running mate yesterday (even though the New York Post thought otherwise), thankfully we won't have long to wait to find out.