The media's role in the Iraq 'road to war' was to be relentlessly critical of weapons' inspectors, particularly whenever they came up with the 'wrong' findings as far as the pro-war-Iraq-has-WMD- lobby were concerned. Weapons' inspectors are back in the headlines, following allegations of use of chemical agents in Syria - are they going to get caught in the cross-fire again?
We are all angry and upset at the terrible pictures of the atrocity in Syria. Poison gas is a cowardly and inhumane weapon. Its use against civilians is especially despicable. Instinctively we all want to punish the perpetrators and ensure there will be no repeat of this mass slaughter. That's the emotional reaction. The rational one is to measure the consequences of our using force in the Syrian Civil War.
Last time Britain and USA went to war without a UN mandate it created a human catastrophe that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, billions of dollars and badly damaged the West's credibility at home and abroad. 10 years later it's Russia and China that are likely to veto any UN Security Council resolution authorising military action, and this time it's Cameron and Hague arguing that intervention could be legal without UN approval...
According to the latest update from Doctors Without Borders/ Medecins Sans Frontieres, three hospitals in Syria's Damascus governorate that are supplied by Doctors Without Borders reported that they received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms such as convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress, in less than three hours on Wednesday.
The US, the UK and France are reported to be weighing up options on what to do about the recent chemical attack on civilians in Syria. It looks increasingly likely that US and possibly UK missiles will be launched at military installations of the Assad regime - an option not so seriously considered up to this point.