If Weapons Were Found  The English historian A.J.P. Taylor once
argued that the principal difference between the methodologies
of the lawyer and the historian was that “the lawyer aims to
make a case; the historian wishes to understand a situation.”
According to Taylor, the evidence amassed by the lawyer is
“loaded” in ways that will maximise the chances of conviction or
acquittal: “anyone who relies on Å [this kind of evidence] finds
it almost impossible to escape from the load with which they are
charged.”  Historians, on the other hand, should allow a
“detached and scholarly” examination of the evidence to direct
them to conclusions rather than taking a stand and then,
retrospectively, seeking documents to support their case.  As
Washington and London assemble their dossiers on Iraq’s weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) for public edification, it is worth
recalling Taylor’s warning about “loaded” documents. Bush and
Blair are scraping together a case to support a decision they
have already taken for other re