Reply #5: I listened to some of it live, I read some of the report, and I read

[AP]

a lot of the media coverage, and I know I'm not going to convince anyone here, but I really think that at worst it was a murder intended to sabotage Blair (which it almost did, but didn't do in the end, good) and at best, it was a guy who realized that he was being manipulated by the media to further RW political goals who then committed suicide.

I really think Blair didn't have any choice but to participate in Iraq, and he's doing for ultimately progressive ends -- if the US dominated Iraq without European oversite, they'd use it to strangle European economic development, which would result in fascits getting elected across Europe, just as the same set of circumtances led to the rise of Hitler 70 years ago -- I'm SURE this is Bush's plan for Europe, and I know Blair isn't blind to it.

I think that Blair has to walk a fine line to justify participation, but I think he's done it more or lesss as lawfully and ethically as possible. Walking a fine line creates opportunities to exploit inconsistencies, and I think Doctor what's his name got cought in a battle over the gray area, and didn't realize which side he was batting for until the end. I think the press was upset that Blair was getting the progressive job done, and was looking for other ways to punish him and get the fascists elected, which is where Gilligan cane in. I think the Hutton Inquiry put up a brick wall to prevent that from happening and did it fairly.

I know someone who knows someone who works at the BBC (I know, hearsay, but reliable hearsay) who knows Gilligan and says he has a terriblle reputation among his colleagues. I have little doubt that that the inquiry hit that nail square on the head.

As I said, I know I'm not going to convince anyone here. But I'm more than willing to leave it to history and I'm pretty confident that my interpretation isn't too far off the mark.