Just wondering, why not just answer the question? Add Jordan, Egypt, France and China to the list as well.

Oh yeah, also Kerry and Clinton.

"First of all, it's Britain or the UK. It's like saying Texas when you mean the US, or France when you mean Europe."

If you're going to be pissy, then don't say that Great Britain and the United Kingdom are the same thing.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Exactly how did Bush Lie about the WMD's?

---

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

He just did.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Opened his mouth ...

Cheers Torsten

Sorry - who is being pissy? Where did I say that the United Kingdom and Great Britain are the same? Either are more correct than saying England, that was my point.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

Tell me what the question was again, Art?

Oh yes, here it is - "Do you also say that Russia and England lied when their information said the same thing or is this really a got ya against Bush that one can drop and use the saved energy to defeat Bush?"

It wasn't "Can you tell me some other countries who had information about Iraq that they thought was guilt edged?"

I followed the Hutton Inquiry quite closely, therefore I thought the actual question was one I thought I had some insight into, so I answered it. No big deal.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

Look at all the hate from the right! Still pissed that Clinton won after 4 years!!!

Also good indication that Gore would've been impeached by now if he had gone into Iraq.

The only "hate" the right has is the hate to lose...which is something that hasn't happened in some time.

Clinton who? Hillary? Bill? You living in the past. Moveon.org

The question is did Great Britian, Russia, France, the UN, Jordan, Egypt, Clinton and Kerry also lie when they said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? You didn't answer that question.

Sorry, maybe "picky" was a better word to use. GB and the UK are not the same thing. Maybe GB would be a better term than England, or maybe the UK would be, but they're not interchangeable, since the same argument applies to GB and the UK as with England and GB.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Like I said - I can only speak for what I know of the case in the UK. In that case, there was deception in the government making the case for war. Geoff Hoon not correcting the tabloids screaming out "45 minutes!!" comes to mind.

Do you want me to say that at some stage the UN lied because based on the best information they had at the time they thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Do you really think the two situations are the same?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

It wasn't a lie, it was bad intelligence and a lot of people believed it. The difference is Bush is the one who decided to put American lives at stake when there really was no "hard" evidence of the weapons. He went to war on a hunch.

I wish they would have at least planted some weapons so we didn't have egg all over us.

That was probably one of the most reasonable opinions on the war I've heard (and I supported the war)

---

_______________________________________________

What I want you to say is the obvious. If Iraq didn't have WMD, then all of these governments, organizations and people were mistaken.

Sadly, this administration refuses to be introspective. So we'll never know if it was bad intelligence, or weak intelligence that was manipulated.

Like I've said before, Clinton would've already been impeached for this.

Powell quotes before the war:

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

he has not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years".

Rice before the ware:

"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099

[reply]If Iraq didn't have WMD, then all of these governments, organizations and people were mistaken.[/reply]

How many of the organisations and goverments and people took their intelligence from the same source? Is the US in charge of the greatest intelligence gathering organisation in the world or not? I think it's probably fair to say that many other people/goverments/organisations rely largely on the intelligence supplied by, you guessed it, the US.

So if you are relying on what someone tells you and that has been misrepresented, are you mistaken or lying? I think it depends where you are in the information chain, no?

Also, it depends what you do with that information, and if you use it as the driving force for going to war knowing full well the data aren't as strong as you say they are, my position is that that is mendacity, not an honest mistake.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

The list of government I offered was limited to those with substantial Intelligence Operations of their own. I forgot to include Israel in the list.

I guess you are saying that these governments believe what they are told by US Intelligence. Puh-lese. That is really weak.

As for Clinton and Kerry, yes, they based their opinions on US Intelligence, as did Bush obviously.

It is pretty clear you are well aware that none of the above lied. Why not admit it?