Peter T.

That the government DESIRED to "sex up" its arguements, I think is beyond doubt. Where Gilligan went wrong was by reporting as fact that THEY DID. That, to use your own words, was, "a deliberately placed misrepresentation of the situation."

The evidence given under oath before Hutton clearly demonstrates that they didn't, that was the government's contention in response to the Gilligan report from the outset.

The BBC, equally clearly, did not do their job well, they were in the position of having two of their staff covering the same topic, both, having interviewed the same expert, arriving at different conclusions. Instead of checking, and clearing, those stories, the BBC's senior management backed the wrong horse by going with the report from a reporter whose standard of journalism they had found questionable on previous occasions.

Reaction of the British public? complete and utter red-herring and totally irrelevant - it was only ever going to be the case that the the decision on the Iraq issue was to be taken by the British Government and approved by the House of Commons - That is what they are there for.

dianavan,

"I am quite sure that most would not like to see Saddams murderous rule continue."

Certain permanent members of the UN Security Council seemed quite keen to see that rule continue. Neither the UN as a whole, or the "Peace Movement" were prepared to do anything about it, which, from a moral point of view, sums both up perfectly.

I don't believe that UNSCOM lied about WMD, what makes you think that they did.

"When the U.N. said no to the U.S.A. and Britain, that should have been clear enough."

I don't recall that the UN did say no, there was no second Resolution tabled. What was clear enough was that the UN were going to behave as they did in Kosovo, Rwanda, etc, etc.

The answer to your last question - since when did the U.S. have the moral high ground? - 1945.