There is a small flaw with this approach. Only a teensy weensy one, mind. I hesitate to mention it at all, but what the heck.
It's just that this whole war business seems quite a significant sort of thing to undertake, what with all the death and everything.
So given that MPs are called to vote on whether to actually go ahead do it or not, I feel that just maybe they ought to have a bit more than "just a summary", to go on.
Summary - "bad man did naughty thing. God told me to get them with guns, with my bessy frend Murka - anyone against? No that's that sorted then!"
14 years later, the report into the lying b*stard is still not published.
Can't agree with that. If we have under cover agents working with groups all over the region collecting all this intelligence it would blow their cover. Its not as if we just say to Saddam, tell us what you have got and we'll just take it at face value. So if we have people working with all these groups covertly, it wouldn't take them long to realise where the info is coming from. So would you want all this passed onto every MP? Or would you just want a summary of the intelligence passed to them
no, you're right, we should just trust what we are told
prepare to die arab type people! I have it on good authority from trustworthy agents that stuff has happened I needn't worry myself about proof or detail but it's a big enough secret thing that I should endorse killing you, whoever you are!