"Clearly, they hated us pre-George Bush"

So right and so wrong at the same time. I recall the comments of a State Department diplomat who after tending in his resignation, issued a press statement that the problem with US Foreign Policy is that it expects to be judged by its words, not its actions.

Yes, much of the Islamic world hates the US prior to George Bush. But if you believe that clap-trap that their animus is borne of some hatred of your "freedoms", you need a history lesson. Its really quite simple:-

1.They hate you because of your unwavering and unequivocal support of Israel, and by necessity, your opposition to Palestinian national aspirations. It becomes all the more galling when it becomes clear that a lot of this is the result of the fear against crossing powerful lobbying groups like AIPAC, as opposed to a stand on principles ("We can't afford to lose Florida - so we better support bombing Lebanon" Nice, real nice).

2. They hate you because of the decades of support propping up unpopular dictators and regimes. Why were they propped up to begin with? Cold War (to keep in check Soviet expansion). Oil (to maintain energy supplies). Frankly, who can blame you. US foreign policy has always centered around identifying a strongman who best represents US interests, and heap on him financial/military backing while turning a blind eye to his excesses. The alternative is a lot of work - becoming intimately involved in each countries efforts at nation buidling, buidling bridges with various native religious/ethnic/political factions on the ground, develop a nuanced and flexible approach to balance everyone's competing concerns and interests. Decades of committment. Americans arent particularly famous for their attention spans. Much easier to write a blank checque to Pinochet/Noriega/Shah/Marcos/Mubarak/Saddam. Just don't act surprised when these tinpot dictators suppress the aspirations of their people (or more often a particular ethnic/religious group or social class), thus effectively neutering the voices of moderates (its hard to be moderate when your son just got "disappeared" by Govt goons), and thus encouraging the rise of radicals (communist, socialist, fundamentalist... take your pick). And don't act shocked when these radicals notice the guns shooting at them were purchased with US aid, and decide that America is the "Great Satan".

3. To top it all off, America adds insult to injury by doing all the above, while still mouthing off about promoting democracy and human rights. China may be just as bad, but at least they aren't claiming to be God's right hand. This problem has become more acute in a world with 24 hr news. The hypocrisy becomes a lot more glaring when contrasting news stories are put almost back to back ("Condi Rice - "This adminiistration has always supported the spread of democracy in the Middle East. The spread of democratic values is the only sure way to achieve a lasting peace" - Cut to story in Venezuela where US remains silent to an attempted coup against a democratically elected Hugo Chavez, and even gives muted/implicit words of support to the coup leaders)

In summary, yes the rest of the world hated you pre-Bush. We have good reason to.

P.S. Yes we are aware of the great sacrifices made by your grandfathers in WWII. Definetely America's finest moment. Its a real shame you squandered that legacy.

No offence, but demanding nothing less than conclusive proof of these shenanigans is unrealistic. If the Administration was minded to forge evidence of WMDs, I seriously doubt that they would commit the orders to paper, or record it in the minutes of meeting etc.

Approach the evidence logically. We know that the letter was forged, the only question is who dunnit. The CIA officer claims to have been instructed by Tenet to forge the document, and that he did so. Weigh the credibility of the opposing sides. Does he have a reason to lie? Maybe its a precursor to a tell-all book or he's angling for $$$ for an interview. Do not confuse the credibility of the witness with the credibility of his advocate. Against that you have an administration that demonstrably (i) was wrong about WMDs, (ii) really wanted to take down Saddam, (iii) lead by a President who prefers to 'go with his gut' than re-consider his positions, and (iv) has shown a tendency towards downplaying evidence contrary to establised views while playing up supportive evidence.

I recognise that its a big step from mere catastrohpic incompetence to actual malicious deception. Don't kid yourselves, there IS a world of difference. Its a glowing line in the sand that nobody crosses accidentally (as opposed to say the murky line in the sand between interrogation and torture).

Whatever view you make take, I think we can at least agree that these accusations are very serious in nature and should be the subject of a full-blown inquiry, preferrably Congressional or at the very least by the DOJ. There is a lot of fatigue on the ground because this Administration has been bouncing from one scandal to another (WMD, Katrina, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Torture, Renditions, Wiretaps, Plame, Gonzales/Gooding's Prosecutor Fiasco etc) and at this point most Americans just want to wash their hands of the incumbent President. Nevertheless, I believe that America owes it to itself to discover the truth. If Bush is vindicated, so be it, my world view can survive an incompetent President, as opposed to a deceitful one. If Bush is guilty, he deserves to be impeached, regardless of how little time he has left.