David Cameron is now seeking to rewrite history - and reinvent himself as an opponent of the war. His 9/11 speech was aimed at distancing himself from Bush and Blair.

Certainly it was not quite a repudiatin of his precious views (accoding to the Guardian he made "it clear there were parts of the neo-con agenda he endorsed "). But it was a significant repositioning. In the wake of General Dannatt's comment we can expect more of it.

But Cameron's record is not just one of voting for the war. His views are on abailable in print.

On 26 February 2003 he wrote in the Oxford Mail

Saddam is an evil dictator, who has invaded his neighbours, terrorised his own people and gassed the Kurds.

He is in breach of 17 UN resolutions and has tried to build up weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq, the middle east and the rest of the world would be better off without him.

But are we justified in launching a pre-emptive war as opposed to deterring and containing him? Shouldn't we maximise the pressure on him and encourage the opposition within Iraq?

To answer that we need to address the question of whether he is a threat to this country.

There are two potential threats.

The first is that he could arm a terrorist group that could carry out a fresh 9/11-style atrocity. This is possible, but the evidence of links between him and Al Quaeda are weak.

The second is that he may use his weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.

He makes a nod in the direction of needing to be convinced, but you couldn't have inserted a fag paper between this view and that of the Prime Minister.

On March 19 he wrote again about how he had supported the Government and ensured that the country would go to war:

"In the great debate about Iraq I voted with the Government and the official opposition...to turn back now would be a disaster. It would break the US/UK alliance that has been the cornerstone of our peace and security."

We shouldn't let anyone forget it.