He is a tyrant, but he has shown no sign of being a suicidal tyrant. If he were to cave in on the issue of weapons inspectors, the US and Britain would lose their justification for war. It is possible that a part of President Bush would be relieved. Do not underestimate the influence of Bush Snr, James Baker and others all urging caution on a president who was elected precariously and who, on the domestic front, faces an economic downturn. A risky war would not necessarily be the best way of securing a second term.That is to leap ahead to a possible optimistic outcome, in which war is avoided. For now, there is still a gaping hole that has not been filled during the summer. The qualified, tentative position of the dissenters has not changed in recent weeks, but nor has the reluctance of Tony Blair and George Bush to give more detailed answers.

The mood of the dissenters would change quickly if their qualifications were addressed. Why are they focusing now on Saddam when there are signs of a more immediate danger in a resurgent al-Qa’ida militancy? What connection is there to the “war against terrorism” proclaimed as the priority a year ago? Are there not even greater dangers of destabilising the region and fuelling anti-American militancy by forcibly removing a regime? One of the elements that has not changed over the summer is this: the world’s two war leaders have still to make the case for war
More from Steve Richards. It is an iron rule that whenever the establishment in this country is wrong about something, it embraces its error with the bravado of a man unaware that he is about to step backwards off a cliff. Thus Barry George must stay in prison for a murder he probably did not commit, the law on recreational drugs has to remain an unworkable mess, and those of us who do not subscribe to supernatural theories about the universe are to go on being banned from contributing to Thought for the Day on Radio 4’s Today programme.
As one of the signatories of the letter sent to the BBC’s governors by the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association, asking for access for non-believers, I cannot pretend that I am surprised. Disappointed, yes, and the only honest course for the producers is to rename the feature in a way that more honestly reflects its content: Banal Personal Anecdote and Pious Platitude of the Day, for example.

Thought for the Day is a misnomer that should attract action under the Trades Descriptions Act, for the rubbish foisted on us most mornings hardly merits such an ambitious title.It is a fraud in another way as well, because the BBC makes sure to present us with religion in its most anodyne form. I have no doubt at all that Osama bin Laden has a considerable number of sympathisers in this country, but the corporation does not allow their tirades against modernity and secularism on to the air. Nor do we hear from the loony Christian evangelicals whose views have such a profound impact on the Bush administration; they may be in a minority here but there are 40 million of them in the US, and I am sure they would be delighted to offer us their views on gays, feminists and other spawn of the devil. Not to mention the imminent arrival of Armageddon which was, for people with that particular cast of mind, signalled by the events of 11 September last year.Why not Hindus who advocate the barbarous custom of suttee? Or Muslims who think women should be stoned to death for adultery? If Thought for the Day is to be ring-fenced for believers, as the BBC has just confirmed, the producers should at least have the decency not to pick and choose between one belief and another. At a moment when conflicts with religious origins are causing trouble around the world, not least on the border between India and Pakistan, the corporation is doing us a major disservice by pretending that all believers are nice, tolerant people whom we’d love to invite round for tea.I have the advantage here of being a woman and an atheist, which means I am innately suspicious of religions of the book. It is an enormous relief to me that Christianity is no longer the force it was in Britain, and that so many of its offensive ideas about sex and morality have ceased to influence public policy.