"You really are the sort of useful idiot who banged on about the 'liberal conspiracy' and the 'real truth' about the Gulf of Tonkin incident long after it had been shown to be a sham."

"your inability to read nuance and your dogged literalism is exasperating. I have no idea whether or not you've ever expressed an opinion about the Gulf og Tonkin, but that's beside the point."

And you have the nerve to go on about me talking a load of Bollocks!! Do make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

"Have I ever banged on about the 'liberal conspiracy?" - The answer is either YES or NO?

If you select YES then please provide the proof of it

If the answer to that is NO, then I would draw your attention to the fact that I can then hardly be the sort of useful idiot who does anything of the sort.

"Have I ever banged on about the 'real truth' about the Gulf of Tonkin?" – YES or NO

Ditto the above with regard to substantiation and logic.

"The PNAC was banging on about iraq long before 9/11"

To hell with the PNAC, that was just a non-governmental independent think-tank, it didn't make, propose or set US Foreign Policy. But the US State Department did, the US Intelligence and Security Agencies did and the Administration of one William Jefferson Clinton did. They all decided that Iraq posed the greatest threat to the security of the United States of America long before 9/11 – Not Bollocks Gervase - FACT.

This next bit of yours is absolutely priceless, still laughing about it as I type:

"can you tell me where any senior administration figure proactively approached the mainstream media and said anything to the effect of "Could everyone calm down. There is no connection at all between Saddam and 9/11, and to continue making those implications is simply wrong"."

HAVE YOU EVER known any politician, civil servant, or Government Minister come out with anything as ridiculous as that?? Now you tell me Gervase what would the reaction of the fourth estate to that have been?? Say the likes of Rupert Murdoch or Piers Morgan?? – Oh, yes they would have backed down and acted responsibly immediately no questions asked - Laughable, bloody laughable.

"Paul O'Neill, Bush's former treasury secretary, has said that "contingency planning" for an attack on Iraq was launched soon after Bush's inauguration and that the very first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion."

I would have been very surprised if it hadn't been. I'd wager that a few other 'contingency plans' were dusted off and updated at exactly the same time, just as they all will be at the moment during the first days of Obama's Presidency – Except of course they now will not need one for Iraq. By the way Gervase what do take 'contingency' to mean??

"when Bush did hold a press briefing once the decision to attack had been made, guess what? Bush invoked 9/11 and Al Qaeda at least a dozen times to justify a preemptive attack. At no point did he say that Saddam had no link with 9/11."

He didn't have to. Oh by the way I did have a "Peek" – Did you?? If you read the full transcript you would see who is continually introducing 9/11 into the equation, you can see who is introducing the 'spin' – MSM.