There was no “confusion.” You insisted on telling me what my position was in spite of the fact that I both denied and specifically disavowed it.
You never asked me if it was my position, you insisted. When I told you it wasn’t and explained why it wasn’t, you insisted that it was. That’s not confusion.
It’s deliberate lying.
No can do, history is not on your side regarding the almost carbon copy equivocation, but I am willing to accept you are not being misled anymore.
So, do you still have a use for Bush?
Thats too bad because I have been trying to get into the mind of people who supported the war despite having all the right information. I can’t say that I agree with the rationale that you propose, the most practical criticism that comes to mind is why “making an example” of Afghanistan was not enough, and if Afghanistan wasn’t enough why did we invade Iraq instead of half a dozen other targets that (at least in my mind) make more sense.