Bloggers are feasting on this story...

...According to Technocrati. 81 links and counting, as far as I can tell.

The scent of corruption and cover-up proves irresistable to the legions that already claim credit for Rather's downfall and Adscam. It's an important story, too. It raises the questions of Mr. Blair's credibility as an advocate for the justice of the Iraq war:

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6.

Unfortunately, Elvis left the building a long time ago. True, the memo calls into question whether or not conditions before the war justified military action on the part of the allies. Not the behavior of the Butcher, per se, but whether or not some type of peace negotiations may have been possible.

Consider, as well, that The Security council passed seventeen resolutions that demand the cooperation of Mr. Hussain's government with UN weapons inspectors. All went ignored. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration and the country in general lacked the will to enforce the resolutions with a military commitment. That changed after 9/11. Unfortunately, European allies did not share the other allies urgency to enforce the final resolution, 1441. Perhaps they had their own reasons for doing so.

Nonetheless, this is not 2003. A new government has asked the allies to remain and help maintain security in the nation while the ongoing training of Iraqi military and police authorities continue. The UN has warmed to the presence of the allies since the beginning of the year. Even the Vatican--a sharp critic of the invasion--believes it's important for the US and the allies to remain until Iraq stands on her own.

If progressives are still looking to win elections that they have lost, their using the Downing Street Memo (DSM) as a pawn. Perhaps progressives in Britain hope to force a no-confidence vote, which would mean new elections in Britain. Since Labor already lost seats, the progressives may hope to take away even more so that Labor must form authentic coalitions with their parties. Perhaps they even hope to pull a Spain and bring British troops home.

That would be the ultimate betrayal of a people that the Brits have already betrayed too often. Without the security provided by the Allies, Iraq would collapse from the insurgency attacks and militia counter-attacks that follow. The hope of the Iraqis' new democracy would smolder in the fires of civil war. The people would never forgive the West, and Arab neighbors would forever gain the right to tell their oppressed people that once again the Great Satan cares nothing for them.

Is this the price progressives are willing to pay in order to win parliment. Is this the price their US counterparts are willing to play in order to embarrass the Bush Administration and maybe win a few seats in the mid-term Congressional elections in 2006? If so, it's a tragedy that those who once identified Liberalism with freedom are now willing to sacrifice a nascent democracy in order to promote statism and socialism--totalitarianism lite. People of good will will not let this happen, no matter how many DSMs emerge.