You are apparently correct. I'll probably have to give you this one. Let me explain how I came to distrust your (the collective your) conclusions.

Now, Iraq. Re the nukes, WMDs, democracy, stability, etc., and so on. Progress, patience, winning, onward and upward ever, forward and on and on to glorious victory. You've been wrong so very, very much it's hard to give you credence on anything which has any political overtones. Or Afghanistan, 6 years later, how it's a democracy with women's rights, the Taliban has been defeated and al-Qaeda has been squashed, smashed, destroyed. And how such losers, decapitated and generally devastated, could get close to Bhutto with bombs that size when the Paks would have known they are coming. Doesn't seem to fit, but you insist they're beat, "last throes", and all that.

Migawd, you support dictatorships and condemning democracies while praising "democracy" and condemning dictatorships. You, the collective "you", cuddling up to the world's biggest nuclear proliferators while attacking those who haven't, there's so much nonsense that one could make a lot of money by betting 10 to 1 you're wrong.

To prove me wrong, that I haven't been trained well, drag out a few of the WMDs that GWB was afraid of, or some of the nukes, maybe a couple of the ships which were to launch crop dusters. Just a couple of the places "we know where they are", maybe, or some of those tactical things in the hands of local commanders. Drag up a few of the Iraqis involved in WTC, show me again how we can't hold Saudi Arabia responsible when it was Saudi Arabians and Saudi Arabian money that were responsible for WTC. In fact, show me how the Saudi government cooperated with the US in tracing money used to finance terrorist activities.

Demonstrate that the people who were tortured weren't tortured at the hands of or the instigation of the US. And most certainly weren't at the once-denied secret CIA prisons.

And so on.

Ya done good, on a reasonable subject.

Arf