A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
Yet more evidence of what we already knew, that the Iraq War was launched under false pretences, by a man who manipulated his own country, and as much of the world as he could manage, into action to serve his own purposes.
There's also this juicy tidbit:
Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
That scheme, on the other hand, would be in breach of international law and any sort of ethical standard. The end justifying the means - but what is there that justified the end itself?
I've already admitted that Jean Chretien was right, three years ago. But how do you know? How do you know which maniacal regime to depose and which to leave alone for the time being? How do you know whether to interfere when genocides are going on? How can you not step in?
But I guess that kind of reasoning and consideration of the lessons of history is what people like Bush count on. There is now one more lesson of history to be learned.
So if you happen to live in a country where your own rights may be threatened, don't wait for the world to save you. There are more reasons now for the world not to respond, than there were before.
Cross posted to the CTV Election Weblog