SOT, all I would say is don't ever underestimate how thick and gullible journalists can be.

Saddam it seems to have turned out was the best of the bad bunch......

At least he kept a lid on the hotbed of radicalism and kept the warring factions in Iraq separate from each other by ruling with an iron rod. By invading and removing him (what was that reason again why we did that?) we have created the very conditions where the radicals can thrive and grow....

And still we do not see Chilcott so are unable to apportion blame.

If Blair & Bush hadn't invaded Iraq then it is unlikely that ISIS would now be driving around in Humvee vehicles and using American arms to inflict their murderous campaign with.

We have been told by Blair, Brown, and now Cameron, that US/UK military action in the Middle East and North Africa was essential to keep us safe in the Western world. The assumption being that we can bomb and kill whoever we please with no risk to ourselves.

Cameron gave the impression of positively relishing a bombing campaign against Libya; he was like a kid with a set of new toys to play with. Now look at the state of Libya – a completely failed state. The result is that sophisticated Libyan arms have been made available to ISIS; a brilliant military strategy on behalf of Cameron and the West.

As is demonstrated by the very wide journalistic support for the anti-CO2 agenda. East Anglia University emails scandal, and the IPCC's hockey stick graph; both bearing witness to journalistic incompetence at exposing the truth. And we must not forget the BBC's advanced reporting of WTC Tower 7 collapsing about 20 minutes before did.

I cant argue with that statement, but my point is how would a Govt get journalists to collude in such a conspiracy? Surely if there were 50 journos involved, one would sniff the scoop and reveal all in an exclusive?

Not necessarily. Hacks sent to these events aren't expert in anything. They go where they're told, do as they're told and pass on what they're told.