From the Guardian http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,560225,00.html
suggesting that Blair's stance, widely analysed in secret as an attempt to restrain Bush, while supporting him in public emotionally, is itself far too over-extended to be in any way practical as a "war against terrorism"
>There are other signs that reality is seeping into No 10, not least over
>the cost. A Downing Street official phoned the Ministry of Defence about
>the cost of firing a Cruise missile. Surely, the query went, an anecdote
>used by Mr Bush about firing a £1m Cruise missile to knock out a tent in
>the desert was not strictly accurate. The Downing Street official was
>alarmed to be told that in fact each Cruise missile fired does cost £1m.
What the story leaves out is why that "Downing Street official", who could after all logically from the wording have been Tony Blair himself, should have released to press sources what is entirely private information in the minds of "the official", if the sharing of this sort of information was not to some extent allowed at the highest level.
What were the sources of this article? And did it have the approval of Alistair Campbell or not?
Chris Burford
London