All over the blogosphere I am still seeing folks harping on this one phrase about "facts being fixed around the policy." The reality is, this phrase is not a smoking gun. It's just the British perception of the American inattention to the details of selling the war. Jack Straw, C and others are merely saying that the Bush administration is being too ham-handed in their attempts to make a case against Saddam.
The smoking gun in the documents is elsewhere. Here is the question we bloggers, and eventually (once we embarrass them into it) the print and broadcast media, ought to be asking Bush:
Was disarming Saddam Hussein a primary war aim?
If not, why did you and your administration tell Congress it was?
If so, why did you and your administration repeatedly attempt to block inspections in Iraq, then withdraw the inspectors while Hans Blix, the head inspector, was reporting free and substantial access to all relevant inspection sites?
Why did you repeatedly lie and say that Saddam had not allowed inspectors into Iraq?
Why, after the war, did you fail to secure sites containing precursors for chemical and biological weapons?
In short, Mr. President, the facts seem to indicate that you were not concerned at all with Saddam's weapons capabilities except as a means to justify an invasion of Iraq. Do you have any facts that have not come to light that might contradict this rather obvious conclusion?
Taking a page from Democrats.com's book, $1000 to any reporter who asks Bush that series of questions.