The Iraq war - more information comes out day by day

Tweet

The reporter Ron Suskind has a new book out in which he recounts how, in the runup to the Iraq war, British intelligence secured unique access to Saddam Hussein's head of intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush. Habbush told them what turned out subsequently to be the truth: that Saddam had ceased his programme of weapons of mass destruction, but would not admit to it, because he was obsessed with keeping regional enemies such as Iran in a state of fear and uncertainty. This version was backed up by Saddam's foreign minister, to whom French intelligence had originally secured access. Suskind says that Bush and Cheney ignored both of these reports, preferring what turned out to be the fabrications of a German intelligence source codenamed Curveball. Now I understand that this basic story is not in doubt (though comments demonstrating that it is in doubt would be welcome), even though Suskind's reporting has been questioned in the past. It has been commented that Bush made facts fit around the policy, ie that Bush was determined to go to war and cherrypicked the evidence that suited his case whilst discarding evidence that was not convenient. A number of people have said, in view of this, that Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes whilst others have said, on what evidence? Now that this information has come out, what do you think about it? Is it true or not? If not, why not, how it this information incorrect or disproved? If true, what are the implications of it in terms of how Bush justified his war against Iraq?