Ok lets try to recapitulate. 
1:
Do you agree with me that Bushs decision was based on wrong Informations ?
If no explain me why.
Do you agree that the wrong informations where delievered by the CIA ?
If no explain me why
Do you agree that it was a mistake from the CIA that they delievered wrong information or from bush that he made a decison based on papers which had no real evidence.
This three things are the basic things for my argumentation everything else is opinion if such a mistake is allowed to happen in such aa delicate question which decides over thousend of lives (american and iraqi)

And to your last point I already said I used the wrong words i am obviously not a native speaker so I often have the wrong feeling for words which leds to misunderstandings.

1) Yes

2) Yes

3) No.  It's the CIA's job to report everything and from where the sources came from.  (Which they did.)

4) Not quite.  The problem wasn't "hard proof".  If "hard proof" was needed it would be impossible.  Do you know how hard it would be to sneak someone into a classified nuclear base to get physical proof or copy documents?   That's ridiculious.

Bush's mistake was that other intellegence agencies in the US... and even some people in the CIA were saying "This is just one report they may or may not have anything."

However, he and the UN went to Saddam... they asked for inspectors... and Saddam... stupid as HE was... refused to let people see... nothing, since he wanted Iran to think he had Nukes.

From there, sanctions would of made sense.  However considering the North Korea mess, Bush overreacted, probably for fear that it would hurt him politically since democrats could say "He says he is big on national security but he let two of our enemies... that he called the axis of evil!  Get nukes!'

It reminds me of this upcoming healthcare bill... Obama promised healthcare, couldn't get it done in his own party... so he's passing that abomination.

Regardless, had the only intellegence he had said "They have weapons."  I could understand it.  (IE the NSA and FBI saying they either thought they did, or didn't know.)

Had they bombed and Saddam still refused to let people in.   I could understand that. (Since, if they were bombing and still threating invasion Saddam you'd think would give in even if he was posturing.)

As it was... it was a mistake.  Though not for the reasons your stating.

Despite the disasters and poor judgement that led to the war and even worse handling during the war and rebuilding...

It looks like somethign good will come from it.  In the long run.  Ironically this will be the "good war."

Which is more then could be said for Afghanistan... which was always a failed cause... since the US allied with the walords from the start of that war.  Even if Afghanistan doesn't fall back into the hands of the Taliban... the people who are in charge now are no better.

Yes... because they so had the ability to suicide bomb at all. I tell you, they had really advanced explosives back then. I hear that Black Gunpowder was very easy to conceal in the quanities that were required for any significant damage other than maybe 3rd degree burns.

Also you are forgetting things that happened before the war even started. To take the Tea Party as an example, Alexander Hamilton basically said that that was the only remaining option they had to defend their constitutional rights. He also called it a principled protest.

Funny, I have the feeling those "terrorists" also feel like they only have one choice and view what they do as principled....

How many people were killed during the Boston Tea Party again?

What year was it again?

1773.

The point is... it was zero.

Zero people were killed during the Boston Tea Party.  Are you argueing killing hadn't been invented yet?

You are compairng the destruction of tea... with the targeting of innocnet people... which wasn't a "new" invention in modern warfare.

It's not only stupid... it's offensive.

No, but suicide bombing probably wasn't as popular as well back then. Keep in mind terrorism evolved over the years just as anything else. You can't shock people using the same thing over and over. I don't know if you have a grasp on terrorism well enough because terrrism isn't about killing people, it's about psychologically abusing people. Just so happens that by killing people nowadays it psychologically affects a population, maybe in another 100 years it will be by destroying unmanned space stations.

Also there are other examples of terrorism:

By your definition of terrorism... shouting at someone angrily is terrorism.

Tarring and feathering... really?

That's even less harmful then the Boston Tea Party.  It was the equivlent of tolietpapering someones house or hitting someone with eggs... you took a bath, and then you were clean again.

College hazing is more harmful.

Your once again compairing a childish antic to the actual deaths of people.

It should also be noted.... that the actual leaders of the revolution did not condone tarring and feathering.

Though once again... it was a very mild situation.

Did they also tie together British Soldiers shoe laces and put shaving cream on their hands while tickling their faces with feathers?

Not at a single person, but at a whole group of people. Remember the feeling here after 9/11 where everyone felt unsafe and at danger? That is the goal of terrorism, not killing the people. The dead were just a means to an end.

Also as I said, I haven't heard of too many people being killed to instill terror back in those days. The best I can think of is guillotining people who the public thought deserved it during the French Revolution, and that was 1789. Maybe killing innocents wasn't entirely new, but killing them as a way to instill fear was probably not as widely adopted, or feasible, as it is today.