Rather a large number of inaccuracies and contradictions there BillD:

"The Plame/Wilson incident" I believe was a damn sight later that February 1998. By the bye BillD it was in 1998 that regime change in Iraq became official US State Policy.

"Congress gave the president the benefit of the doubt, because he was SUPPOSED to have clear, 'slam-dunk' information gathered by his masterful intelligence community."

Please correct me if I am wrong here BillD but in the immediate wake of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the combined security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America were tasked with identifying what constituted the greatest threat to the nation. At the same time in parallel the Congressional Security Committee were requested to evaluate exactly the same thing. They both came up with the same scenario, a three part recipe for disaster to which the USA was particularly vulnerable as had been demonstrated by the attacks of 911, i.e. an international terrorist organisation; a rogue government or regime; access to WMD material, technology or to the actual weapons themselves. The Security Committee consisting of members from both houses identified a short list in order of merit it ran Iraq, Iran, North Korea as most likely candidates to fulfil the "rogue government" part of the axis. Congress did not "give anybody the benefit of the doubt" - They actually identified the most likely candidate as Iraq and presented that finding to the President.

"HE (The President) was SUPPOSED have" - wrong way round BillD the evidence and the evaluations were given to the President.

"HIS masterful intelligence community" - wrong again BillD, the security and intelligence agencies were those of the United States of America, they most certainly were not the "President's Men" damn near all of them had been in their jobs for years, they were the same men that had advised Bill Clinton of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq three years before.

Now you as President of the United States of America, a nation just recently subject to the most devastating attack carried out by foreign nationals on American soil, are advised by the security and intelligence srvices of yhe country and by an independent evaluation carried out by Congress that Iraq under Saddam Hussein poses the greatest threat to the nation - You would ignore that??? If you blythely ignore that advice BillD, that would be an impeachable offence.

Where did you say anything to the effect that "The Axis of Evil" poses no threat? This sounds awfully like it BillD - "Piffle! There WAS no threat from Iraq until.. etc,etc"

You feel that the world isn't any safer because of what has transpired. But the demonstrable fact is that it is safer BillD. Now let's see what you advocate as what should have been the way forward:

"**IF** that "axis of evil" seriously tried anything, we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours."

Really BillD, what ability, without the enforced choice "Either with us or against us", without international co-operation because of Jimmy Carter the US security services were completely blind when it came to human intel relating to the middle-east in 2001. You are not now because counter to what you may believe most of the world's security and intelligence gathering agencies are firmly on the side of the US, their governments had to make a choice. Use of "Air Power", Eh BillD? That's your solution, that's your response - Again correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that what Bill Clinton tried on numerous occasions during the 90's and in so doing singularly failed to protect either the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America and the allies of the United States of America.

With an asymetric "Axis of Evil" type attack as described BillD, who is it that you make "very sorry in about 48 hours"? On what proof do you attack anybody and where would you attack them?. Clinton did that and knocked out a powder milk factory and killed a few civilians. In the aftermath of 911 Bush was not stupid enough just to go and bomb Afghanistan, he first opened a line of communications to the Northern Alliance and then helped them to remove both Al-Qaeda and the Taleban from their position of power in that country.

Now here's the biggest contradiction of all - you say that you don't feel any safer but at the same time you state that -"I am not a bit convinced that we need fear any major attacks" Oh sorry BillD, again I thought you claimed that you had never dismissed the threat posed by "The Axis of Evil". Don't know about you Bill but sounds awfully like it to me. Or is it that you feel that you need not fear any major attacks because as a nation you are now alert and that proper measures are exercised - One question for you BillD, who was it put you as a nation at your current state of alertness, who was it implemented those proper measures. They certainly would not have existed following your recipe for inevitable disaster, i.e. "swaggering around, threatening air strikes", because correct me if I am wrong but "we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours" is precisely that isn't it - "swaggering around, threatening air strikes". You say that it, "just builds animosity and makes it MORE likely some group will keep pot-shoting at us...most likely in places like embassies in foreign countries." You mean exactly as happened throughout the 1990's BillD. Since March 2003 BillD how many times have your embassies been bombed? How many attacks have been carried out on the mainland of the United States of America.

Now let's go back to the "piffle":

"Piffle! There WAS no threat from Iraq until WE went in there with faked justification,(without any resolution), and created conditions that LURED various Al Qaida operatives there, because it was not a LOT more convenient to kill Americans and cost them lots of money."

Your solution in the face of a declared threat appears to be to basically sit back and wait for the attack to come. That approach has not served you in the past and would be disastrous when faced with the threat described by your current President in his State of the Union Address in January 2002. By sitting back and waiting you surrender initiative to your enemies, it is far, far better to engage your enemy whenever and wherever you can find him. Give them something to think about. By all means lure them with their own ideology and propaganda into fighting you on a ground of your choosing. Cut the ground out from under them, as long as you do that their main concern is their own survival not attacking you at home.