Refusal to alter one's views in the face of evidence and argument is called "bigotry".
I haven't seen any evidence or argument that President Bush -didn't- stumble into a major war in the Gulf, and I've seen nothing to refute the idea that it was his humiliation at our hands that has caused Saddam Hussein to sponsor the WTC bombing in 1993, an attempt to assassinate former Pres. Bush in 1993, probably some connenction with the bombing of the Murrah building in 1995 and more than likely some connection with 9/11. And I've seen nothing to suggest he would have undertaken such sponsorship -except- for his being humiliated at our hands.
As usual, you are pushing what "everybody knows" instead of a fact based interpretation.
Walt
[You, changing the subject] As usual, you are pushing what "everybody knows" instead of a fact based interpretation.
1. You don't make the rules in this forum, Walt, and I won't let you make a rule here, that we all have to post like you do, or it doesn't count. Self-serving tripe.
2. My posts are based in fact as thoroughly as yours. I can't simply propound what pleases me; I must observe and take account of the facts when offering my opinions, no less than Madison or Washington or John Jay did in their day. Your reliance on appeals to "authority" retrieved from quote-files compiled by tendentious professors' grad-school cave trolls attempts to create a chimera of command of subject (aka "wonkery"), an argument from expertise that neglects candor while it serves your tendency -- the Wizard of Oz ploy. But see 1. above: I reject your call to duelling quote-boxes. Only Clinton voters are impressed by wonkery.
3. You changed the subject again.