IRAQ: IT'S an old trick of politicians. If you are in deep trouble, vehemently deny something never claimed in the first place. So it is with Tony Blair.

He says any suggestion that Downing Street made the intelligence services invent evidence of weapons of mass destruction is absurd.

Quite right too - it would be political suicide. But nobody said it. The claim was No 10 exaggerated the importance of a single-sourced allegation that Saddam could deploy them in 45 minutes. It was rubbish and the Prime Minister's men and security chiefs knew it was iffy when Tony Blair told the Commons. That is disgraceful - a nation doesn't go to war on "evidence" like that.

The Prime Minister also dismisses mounting unease both here and in the US about the cynical way we were bounced into war. It is, he says nothing more than those opposed to the invasion finding fresh reasons to support their case.

Of course it is, but so what? Nations should declare war and condemn innocents to death only for the gravest of reasons of self-defence, backed by irrefutable evidence.

We had neither. The row over Britain's dodgy dossiers on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction gets murkier. Now George Bush is embarrassed because he used dubious British intelligence that Saddam attempted to obtain uranium in a key speech to the American people.

Now the White House says that the information was wrong. The head of the CIA, who passed on the intelligence, has publicly apologised.

The two powerful leaders of the coalition are more and more isolated in their own countries.

From his hiding place Saddam must be hoping he will have the last laugh after all. The Iraq war could yet spell the end for President Bush and Tony Blair.

The people's trust is a Prime Minister's most precious commodity. It's disappearing fast. - DT Murray, Coxhoe, Durham.

WIMBLEDON

CONTRARY to one correspondent (HAS, Jul 11) I did not think that this year's Wimbledon was the worst ever.

I wonder if Wimbledon is more than just tennis and is somewhat special compared to other tournaments, and that the pomp and ceremony and presentation can overshadow mediocre play on the courts.

I thought Rusedski was Britain's best hope; Henman, with his problems, was far too timid to take the crown.

The best match was Roddick v Federer, which I classed as the final, tennis at its best.

The women's final, a repeat of last year's, was little more than a boring knock up. Even the players seemed bored.

All in all I think Cliff may well have regretted maintaining an impeccable silence. - D Punchard, Kirbymoorside, York.

SMOKING

IT may be true about exhaust fumes being harmful (HAS, Jul 10) but until we get better fuels or transport systems we cannot do without vehicles to carry us about or bring goods and services, so that part of the pollution may be an evil necessity.

Smoking isn't a necessity, except to its addicts, and it's no excuse for any of us to plead that we make use of transport as it can, easily, be shown that we're dependant on it for goods and services.

The argument that the Government needs the heavy tax on tobacco is not true. Tobacco smokers are taxed because they happen to be there and tax is levied on the people as a whole. So if all smokers gave it up this would not bankrupt the Government, as we would then be taxed on whatever other commodities we were using with our disposable income.

It is the people who pay taxes, and not that brown poisonous substance which some foolish people persist in smoking. - R Lewis, Birtley.

EUROPE

IT is claimed in your columns that the EU is always to our detriment.

Millions of ordinary people, who have benefited from social legislation, wouldn't agree.

Those who have been helped from restructuring funds for uncompetitive global industries wouldn't either - people like me, who left the steel industry 20 years ago when it first started to contract.

Small businesses in the North-East who were helped to grow by EU money in the wake of the coal mine closures won't be complaining.

Those 142,000 North-East workers whose jobs depend on ever-growing EU trade might have a positive view.

Sorry you moaning minnies, your fantasies and fears just don't stand up to the reality test. - R Ashby, Gosforth.

ROYAL FAMILY

I FEEL I must reply to Hugh Pender (HAS, Jul 3) as I feel he has some of his facts wrong.

Mary, Queen of Scots was fully aware that her son, on her death, would become James VI Scotland. She also knew that her cousin Elizabeth I of England had no heirs, therefore her son would become King James I of England.

Although cousins, Mary and Elizabeth had never met, but Mary wrote these words to her cousin: "Whatever you do to me Elizabeth as you have no heirs my son will be King of England and wear King Edward's crown." - JA Wallis, Darlington.