Roland et al
The fact that the Dr has been twice before - and at least one trip to Afghanistan, according to the press - is rather in his favour. It shows that this is unlikely to be a case of "don't want to do it" and "can't be ar$ed", but more likely is instead a principled stand based on an assessment of the evidence available to him.
The Hutton Enquiry demonstrated the paucity of the intelligence used, and the manner in which was presented; it is now hardly a contentious position to argue that the first "Dossier" was designed to mislead, and the less said about the second, the better. This information was not in the public domain in 2003 of the first half of 2004.
Moreover, the issue of the legal advice only came into the public domain in 2005. The A-G's initial legal advice was IMHO gung-ho but defensible; a follow-on resolution to UNSCR 1441 was required for legality and the first time around the A-G accepted that this was a reasonable view. In the second, a week or so later, he decided it was not. Prof Philippe Sands put together a devastating critique of the whole thing in the second half of the 2005 Mishcon lecture (
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/mishcon/do...2005_Sands.pdf) - it's about 25 pages, and the the second half is better than the first.
The point here is that there is that as the information available to you changes, it must be possible to change your mind. If the Dr is saying he now has information that he didn't previously (and with Hutton and the legal advice this is perfectly possible), and that with this new information, he has changed his mind, that to me seems entirely reasonable.
And pr00ne is entirely entitled to his view; those serving are doing so to protect his right to believe and express his views, as he did yours when he was serving... Big Picture, People!!
S41