Well, since we never have been able to concretely source the anthrax letters, I'm really not sure what your point is. However, shortly after 9/11, Bush went after the immediate, apparent threat in Afghanistan, and naysayers like you were on his case every step of the way - he's waiting too long, air power won't suffice, it's getting too close to winter, we're sinking into a quagmire - and then, suddenly, when the Taliban fell and Al Qaeda was scattered, the naysayers slunk off like skunks in winter, to re-appear in the springtime of new opportunities to second-guess and bash Bush in a heady, fact-free vacuum of their own concoction.
IMO Bush made the invasion decision when Blix gave his initial report that showed the Iraqis weren't cooperating. But he hasn't had sufficient resources in place until now, and deployment was further delayed by the Turkish waffling. He as CinC is responsible for the lives of those troops, and I would rather wait until we have overwhelming force than rush in because you are too impatient to watch a chess match.
Actually, I always stated that Afghanistan would be a pushover, so you're dreaming again. And you're in total denial about the reason we haven't attacked Iraq, 18 months after Saddam flattened the World Trade Center and smashed an airliner into the Pentagon. I asked you some very simple questions which must have an answers. But you don't want to think about the questions, because you know you won't like the answer. That's called "evasion." That's called "denial." It's time for people on this site to start thinking and acting like grownups. Grownups do not run away from unpleasant realities. They deal with them.