SNIP
>
>>Also, with recent news showing Tony Blair taking quite a pummelling recently over this same question, you'd have to extend this same cultural difference to the British as well...
>
>This was the same public who were definitely against the war, then suddenly for it. Public opinion is often fickle.

Fickle?!?!
Prime Minister Blair's "public" never was ambivalent about the war, at least as seen from here.
Immediately after the war polls showed that his rating was soaring, that's true. But it was always credited to be because he stood hard and fast by his convictions through merciless criticism AND because it turned out to be a nice short low-casualty war. And of course it was fully anticipated that the WMD would be QUICKLY located, the warriors and the politicians all saying it wouldn't be long.

While the public may be "fickle", my observation is that it is so primarily on the more 'trivial' matters and certainly not on issues like war.

I recollect you saying that you would be greatly upset if there proved to be no WMD. I assume you haven't fickled on that position.

As regards the Hersh article... does he not provide significant new (to the average Joe like you/me) information regarding intelligence "sources"?... Does he not enlighten us as regards the usurpation of the CIA/DIA/State Dept by some who 'needed' to find skeletons where none were?... Am I p*ssed (adjusted to comply with UT pornography filters) off that the Cabal calls themselves the Cabal - yes because I invented it and they stole it!