JS: "No matter what you guys came up with intelligence-wise... we were going to war with Iraq."
GT: "They make decisions on the basis of lots of other issues."
Read: The War was never about disarming Iraq.
What other issues?
* Not WMD
* Not Osama
* Not democracy
* Not security from "terror"
The power players "on both sides of the aisle" knew all this. They mostly hitched their fortunes to The War.
* Were they all too stupid?
* Were they all too cynical?
* Were they all too greedy?
* Were they all too corrupt?
* If they were all too afraid (remember the Brit intel who spoke out, then bled out), what should we conclude about this G. Tenet spectacle?
Shouldn't we analyze and consider the reasons they created The War before (or at least while) we act to stop it?
Alternate link
Uh, both sides could wrong. And would somebody crank up the color, cuz this black & white nonsense gives me a headache.
I am shocked that Richard Dawkins would lend his name to this article.What important issues in life are binary? To be or not to be? Only those too lazy and unimaginative to form their own opinions could possibly accept this formulation.
I expect more from Richard Dawkins (though sadly not of the Guardian) than to participate in this manichaean brainwashing.
The meaning of "Jesus" is certainly not binary.
Manichaean propaganda is surely a relevant and important issue, and dualism is inherent in the title and opening paragraphs of this article.
Science is a unary proposition. "I assert that these methods provide the most reliable means to discover physical truth." Yes, it is either right or wrong -- but there are assuredly not two sides.