[Aurel]

Denis,

I assume that your question refers to these statments:

Rumsfeld, in his testimony Tuesday, expressed skepticism that killing bin Laden would have done anything to prevent the attacks of September 11 because the sleeper cells who carried out the attacks were already in the country.

"Ironically, much of the world, in all likelihood, would have blamed September 11th on the U.S. as an al Qaeda retaliation for the U.S. provocation of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden," he said.

Yes that is rather absurd, but my first point is that things will get more and more absurd as long as the election campain goes on...
I personally think that Bush did a great job in invading Afghanistan and destroying theTaliban regime, which the entire world knew was harboring terrorists and violating human rights...and the entire world was behind him. Then, he went to Iraq, made up a WMD threat, gave his finger the the UN, and totally screwed up...this was an absolute mistake, and I can predict that he will not be reelected for that.
My last comment would be that terrorism is an extremely powerfull political tool: anybody can be called terrorist, and depending on the need of the day, one can say that killing terrorists will cause more terror or less terror. One can also decide that killing the heads of terrorist groups destroys the group, or that it does nothing since these are horizontal organizations. In the end, maybe the real question is: who is truly behind those terorist groups and what are their real motivations ?
You see, I still don`t get the`destroying or freedom` thing. The Swiss and the Swedish are free and rich too...

Aurel