My point on Afghanistan was that Bush's approach was considered and involved getting widespread support among nations, and that Tony Blair probably thought that was what was going to happen with Iraq. It didn't, and Blair is stuck with an ally who doesn't care how many nations he alienates. I doubt Blair shares that lack of concern about alienating most of Europe, for instance. Of course Afghanistan was different too in that they were actually involved in attacking the US, while Iraq isn't.

Iraq is also a bit more central in people's minds than Afghanistan, which means that the post-war situation we see in Afghanistan, which still isn't good, is largely hidden, while the equivalent (or worse) situation we would no doubt see in Iraq will be quite visible. The destruction of Baghdad will also be more noticeable than the destruction in Kabul, both due to the country's visibility on the world stage and the before/after difference, which will be more extreme in Baghdad.

So while I wasn't using Afghanistan as an example of a noble effort in my post -- just as an example of good political judgement vs. bad -- it is true that there was some moral justification for attacking a country which had attacked us. That justification is lacking in regard to Iraq. Others will see that even if Bush can't. As Joseph Fouché said of Napoleon's execution of the Duc d’Enghien, "It is worse than a crime: it is a mistake."
(quote often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand).