Fuzzy videos released by al-Qaeda themselves
You're arguing that poor sound and visual quality compromises the videos' probative value? That might be an argument if they were released by the US government, but is not relevant for videos released by al-Qaeda. Surely the fact that they don't have adequately high-resolution video quality in whatever cave they're hiding out in does not mitigate the fact that they themselves are producing this video of pre-9/11 footage in order to take responsibility for, and glory in, the attack.
Believe it or not, the invasion of Iraq was a much more criminal act than 9/11, IMO.
I do believe that that's your opinion. I don't believe that you appreciate the gravity or the evil of what the 9/11 attackers did.
We agree that killing people is presumptively a bad thing. I am no fan of George Bush. What I do not understand is how you can argue that an incompetently planned and poorly executed war is "much more criminal" than the malevolent mass slaughter of innocent civilians.
Let's say that Bush went to war in order to ensure a reliable oil supply ("greed") - though I don't think that was the only or even the predominant factor. If that is so, then the war is a massive failure that argues incompetence rather than malevolence.
Let's say that Bush went to war to take revenge for his father and to "get" Saddam Hussein ("spite") - though again I don't think that was the main factor. If that is so, then he has been successful in unseating a spectacularly unpleasant dictator and instituting democratic elections. Even taking into account the terrible security situation on the ground - which is partly his fault - the man deserves some kudos for that.
Bush and his administration did sex up the intelligence, ignore the CIA, and use that sexed-up intelligence to justify a war they had already decided to wage. They deserve condemnation for that and possibly, in the case of Bush, impeachment.
I do think, though, that another factor in his thinking was a real desire to bring what he considers to be freedom to Iraq. I may be giving him too much credit, but everything I have seen of him over the course of seven years suggests to me that on some level he really does believe in this. He comes under fire from more isolationist conservatives precisely because of this messianic strain in his character. They would prefer to see him intervene only when the US's critical interests are at stake.
It is also a mistake to suppose that he doesn't care about his own soldiers' lives. Yes, he could have done more to protect their lives, starting with not launching the war in Iraq and continuing with providing them with better armored vehicles. But it is clear in this war that the quality of care the soldiers receive, on the field and off, is streets ahead of Vietnam-era care and is a major factor in keeping US military deaths well below those of the Vietnam war.
You have a much harder task than me here. I have only to demonstrate why Bush, even if evil in some ways, is less evil than Osama bin Laden. You have to demonstrate why he is more. Therefore, I can prove my point merely by asking you: what is Osama bin Laden waging, if not his own private, pre-emptive war against the "Zionist crusaders"? What is his genocidal hatred of Americans based on, if not on a set of thoroughly discredited prejudices about them? What freedom does Osama want to bring to you and to all of us - what votes, what education, and what human rights? Finally, what love can a man have for his own troops when he sends them out on missions where he intends from the beginning for them to die?
Regarding the destruction of "whole cities", which Iraqi city has been destroyed?
