PARIS: While the two governments that most staunchly supported the United States in the Iraq conflict face tough questions into allegations they “sexed up” the case for war, President George W. Bush is under no such pressure from Congress.

In Britain, a long-running political drama will intensify this week when Prime Minister Tony Blair and defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon appear before a special legal inquiry into the presumed suicide of government scientist David Kelly.

Kelly was at the heart of allegations that Blair’s department exaggerated a statement to parliament about the reasons for going to war, including inserting a clause that Saddam Hussein could strike with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

The case has been highly damaging for Blair, and commentators in the British press said Hoon is fighting for political survival.

In Canberra, a former intelligence official accused the Australian government of misleading the public by “dishonesty” over the accuracy of intelligence reports.

On the other hand, the US Congress has not acted on allegations that Bush included a false report about a supposed uranium-acquisition programme by Iraq in his State of the Union address in January.

But the intelligence and armed forces committees in Congress did hold closed hearings on the intelligence lapses and whether Bush was given good information on Iraq’s weapons.

The Republican majority in Congress has refused to establish a special commission to investigate the allegations that the administration manipulated intelligence reports to justify the war.

According to Joe Lieberman, a Democratic candidate for president, Bush broke “a basic bond of truth” with the American people by inserting false and misleading information.

But Bush, who said his speech was cleared by intelligence services, has had to face nothing more politically dangerous than a news conference.

His closest ally, Blair, on the other hand, while adept at fending off questions in parliament, faces an independent judicial inquiry headed by a feisty judge that has already shone a great deal of light on the inner workings of British government.

Hoon will appear before the inquiry, headed by Lord Hutton, on Wednesday, followed by Blair on Thursday.

Kelly was found dead with a slit wrist after Hoon’s office revealed he was the likely source of allegations that senior officials, including Blair’s media chief, Alastair Campbell, had overridden the reservations of intelligence services and exaggerated the case for going to war. At the same time, Hoon’s department has been fending off criticism about the way Kelly’s name was made public.

The inquiry has already heard evidence that Blair’s office authorized a “substantial rewrite” of the government’s dossier on Iraq after the prime minister’s chief of staff complained it did nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat.

In Canberra, David Wilkie, an ex-intelligence officer who resigned over the war, said Prime Minister John Howard’s office “sexed up” the intelligence reports that were offered to justify going to war against Saddam Hussein.

“Sometimes the exaggeration was so great, it was clear dishonesty,” Wilkie told a parliamentary inquiry.

He said information was going from the intelligence agency to Howard’s office “and the exaggeration was occurring in there, or the dishonesty was occurring somewhere in there.”

Howard told Wilkie to “stop slandering decent people.”

In other countries, the questioning has been less intense. Nevertheless, some of the governments that supported the United States in Iraq during the war or subsequently are treading in a political minefield.

Spain, which supported the US-led coalition, but did not send troops during the war had “nothing to hide,” according to Defence Minister Federico Trillo. But the opposition is pushing for a debate to withdraw Spanish forces now in Iraq, following the death of a Spanish officer in the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad.

Danish left-wing parties have called for an investigation into the government’s use of allegedly misleading intelligence, but Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has brushed aside the demand as “academic”.

The Dutch parliament has asked Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer to clarify how the government reached its decision to support the United States, and the government is preparing a reply.

In Portugal where, like Spain, the government supported the United States without sending troops, Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso never produced intelligence reports to justify his position. He simply argued the need to support its ally, the United States, against a despotic regime.

He therefore escaped the political storm swirling around Blair and Howard, which is not so much about the war itself as about alleged deception of parliaments and skeptical publics.—AFP