Teribus----



I'm glad you recognize that you are pathetic. Recognition is the first step to doing something about the problem. But I'm sorry to say your progress is painfully slow. You still can't even read. You really should make an effort to do so.



"possible similar attack in the future with much graver consequences" Duh, that's exactly what I just finished saying.

Do you have any idea what "this time armed by Saddam Hussein" means? Do you have any idea of what country Saddam ruled in 2002? Do you have any idea what country Bush had targeted--at least by summer 2002?

Once more with feeling: the Bush regime exploited the US deep fear engendered by 9-11 to stoke hate and fear against Saddam--whom he had already, at least by summer 2002, decided to attack. That was the propaganda campaign--which started about summer 2002 (not before)--for an unnecesssary war-- of Bush's choice---for which he deserves designation as the all-time worst US president.

Don't bother with your red herrings about no connection between 9-11 and Saddam in the days just after 9-11. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, it is my contention that the firm decision to attack Iraq had not been made. By summer 2002, it most certainly had been.

So the quotes from you must START in summer 2002--through the day of the actual invasion--in March 2003.

And since you have unlimited time to waste with meaningless cut-and-pastes, please don't forget to also address the issues brought up by petr--logical arguments as to why the decisions he cites were not the stupidest ones made in the Iraq war.

Have fun.