THE Prime Minister refuses to apologise for the chaos in Iraq. Yet he gave a spin doctor (Alastair Campbell) managerial control of civil servants, by Order in Council, without discussion in parliament. This was a constitutional abomination which undermined the political neutrality of the Civil Service and reintroduced eighteenth-century political patronage.

It enabled Mr Campbell to influence the drafting of the unclassified public document which the government wanted. It was based on classified intelligence assessments but, as the Butler report pointed out, "warnings were lost about the limited intelligence base" (Page 154), eg, that the "intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction . . . is sporadic and patchy" (Page 67).

Butler also concluded that the September 2002 dossier gave the impression "that there was fuller and firmer intelligence . . . than was the case" and that "more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear" (Page 154).

Should the Prime Minister not now at least apologise both for undermining Civil Service political neutrality and for misleading parliament by asserting on the day of publication that the intelligence was "extensive, detailed and authoritative" (Page 114)?

Ronnie Cramond, 1/8 Dun-Ard Garden, Oswald Road, Edinburgh

THERE is no period further away, no age darker, than the day before yesterday. Mr Tony Blair understands better than almost anybody the power of amnesia. Our retreat from Basra, as he explained, is a victory, any thoughts of scuttling having been long removed from his mind, and he believes, possibly correctly, from ours.

Similarly, the two crucial divisions in parliament as to why we went to war in Iraq, on February 26 and March 18, 2003, are expunged from public memory. Both, passed by large majorities, specifically related to "disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction". (Both required the need for specific UN approval which never came.) The fact that Saddam was not in possession of WMD is neither here nor there. Not now. For it was actually all about "regime change" we are currently told by Blair apologists, the same parliamentary crew who voted for the terms of the divisions aforementioned. Blair now disclaims, as he did on Wednesday, "any responsibility", far less culpability, for the carnage he has unleashed in Iraq. The victims, all 655,000 of them, are responsible for the crime. Iraq's trashing by foreign invaders will be paid for by the profit-making of those same invaders in something called "deconstruction and reconstruction".

"In the endgame," said one of the world's best-ever chess players, Jose Raul Capablanca, "don't think in terms of moves but in terms of plans." The endgame in Iraq will be unimaginably bloody. Just as we invaded Iraq for the good of Iraqis so we will depart with their interests in mind. The fact that Blair's own departure from office will coincide with troops' departure is entirely fortuitous. We lied our way in and we will lie our way out. The son of his "People's Princess" ensconced in Basra adds to the PR presentation and the gaiety of the nation, this nation, not Iraq's.

"Ransomed, healed, restored, forgiven" is what he craves, at least the last three phases. Mr Blair believed in the case for war. That's a form of insanity. It's his greatest strength. Hence the long litany of lies that underpinned its prosecution. And thus a deranged man will continue in office until he, and only he, is ready to go, while he frantically "secures his legacy". We are but spectators at the tragedy in this elective dictatorship of ours.

Chris Walker, 21/23 Main Street, West Kilbride

IT IS clear from Gordon Brown's rather tired essay (February 23) that he has a penchant for quoting statistics involving large - very large - numbers. There is one very large number that should trouble him, that I doubt he will ever quote and that is 500,000, give or take a hundred thousand or so - the number of Iraqis, civilians overwhelmingly, killed as a result of the Bush, Blair and Brown shameful and illegal war.

No doubt his appetite for, and experience of, waging war will stand him in good stead when as PM he is called upon to invade Iran, or whoever else is on the list, at the behest of the US. At best he should be known as "Complicity" Brown, "Prudence" coming very near the bottom of his list of attributes.

Clark Corstorphine, 11Bankside Gardens, Kilbirnie

I REALLY cannot see what all the fuss is about concerning Harry's determination to serve with the army in Iraq. Like any young man from a military family, he just wants to follow in his father's footsteps.

Dr John O'Dowd, 3 Downfield Gardens, Bothwell