Your thesis ignores a good many facts. It just so happens we were right to go into Iraq--Saddam had been supporting terrorists for years, including some of the ones responsible for 9/11. This has been documented both in the 9/11 report and in Stephen Hayes' book, "The Connection." (Also subsequent articles, many posted on Free Republic.)
Even without that particular evidence, the most cursory of glances at Grampa Dave's list of terrorist attacks should make it apparent to even the most dense of Freepers that they were on the attack long before we ever entered Iraq--even before the first Gulf war.
No, I lay the blame squarely where it belongs: in the laps of those who think they must kill anyone who is not a Muslim until they achieve their goal of an Islamic world.
People like you only help them.
Talk about dense!
These barbarians are attacking around the world for ONE reason ... they believe they are the vanguard of a Muslim fundamentalist revolution that will purge their neighborhoods of western infidels and the influences therof.
If I could spend ten minutes with you and a shillelagh I think I could get it through your thick head.
My opposition to Bush's (nutty neocon) move from the Afghan/Paki border to Baghdad is and has been that the terrorists interpreted this move as:
1) Weakness on our part (a willingness to run from the East's dashing young madman/hero to pursue a toothless old tiger in an impoverished country).
2) A clear signal that we were intent on making war on all Muslims, not just terrorists. A powerful message that they have of course carried to the masses.
From our own standpoint it has accomplished nothing positive, not even the neocon goals.