You started the discussion around Bush and the war and I'm told to keep up for discussing it? With all respect of course!
Also you never answered my questions. What would YOU DO? It's easy to criticize, it's a lot harder to come up with a plan and take action.
What do those documentaries and your comments have to do with reasons to invade? They cover the mistakes made in securing the country unless I'm mistaken. I'm naive but at least I can follow a train of thought!
BTW (this goes for all that attack the person instead of the issue), please look at the way I talk to people, and talk to me the same way. There is a level of sarcasm that is to me acceptable on a forum. And then there are personal attacks when someone disagrees with an opinion. Calling somebody naive, ignorant, saying "keep up" as if to imply I'm out to lunch... You're attacking the person instead of the issue.
It's pretty tough to debate fact on the internet, when in most cases the "facts" come from other sources on the internet, which may or may not have their roots in reality. I was hesitant to post the 88% stat but it was so massively one sided I figured even with error it would be hard to refute.
I'm happy to debate issues of theory. That is constructive. Again: you're a leader of a country which sustains a terrorist attack (forget about the potential advanced warning). What would you do? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
And don't say move to Canada, we don't need any more liberals up here!