Frost asked, and here I'm paraphrasing, if there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, how much difficulty would the UK government find itself in? Hoon answered that signs of WMD had already been found, blah, blah, ..chemical suits..., blah, blah, ...history of use..., blah, blah. In other words he singularly failed to answer the question. Frost then went on to ask if the UK, as a major partner in the coalition, would play an equally prominent role in the interim government of Iraq, or would it all be left to the US to run. Again Hoon failed magnificently to answer the question waffling on about humanitarian relief in Basra.
Now we're all used to politicians dodging the questions posed to them by T.V. interviewers, it's one of the things that's turned the UK population off of politics in such a big way. The politicians seem to think that by not answering the questions that they've "pulled a fast one", some how gotten away with something. This is far from the case. The sophisticated electorate realise that the politician simply has no answer, or worse, that we would not like the answer given.
This brings me back to the interview in question. Hoon, by pointedly refusing to answer the question, has shown us that the truthful answer, were he ever to give it, is simply not palatable to the electorate namely, in the this case, that the government would be in deep trouble if they'd sent our troops to die in the Gulf to rid the world of the threat of WMD when there were none to begin with. This would lead more of the population to come round to the conclusion that this author has that the war is being fought purely for commercial reasons.
On the second point, Hoon refuses to answer again, because the answer is not palatable. The UK will not share in the running of Iraq as that was never part of the game plan. The US went into Iraq to secure supply of the world's second largest resource of oil. Note, I said supply of, not revenue from. All the US's talk of holding the revenue in trust for the people of Iraq is a smoke screen. The US doesn't need the money it's rich already. What it does need is a puppet regime that will guarantee oil supply to the US, who is quite willing to pay for it. The UK does not feature in this plan and so will play no real part in the running of Iraq.
Finally, the big question to be posed in the post Sadaam era is, when the US puts in it's puppet regime, and that regime guarantees oil supply to the US, if that regime continues to conduct human rights abuses, will the world be so keen to overthrow it?