Those were the first words of my first general opinion column for the Ipswich Evening Star. I went on to mention one exception, and I intend to write about that another time. But my main point was about George W Bush, then "at the controls of the most powerful killing machine in the history of the world".
It was February 21, 2003, and Bush was a month away from launching the invasion of Iraq.
The invasion which led quite rapidly to the downfall of Saddam Hussein as that country's leader. And, over a rather longer timescale, to the deaths, maiming and unhoming of millions. To the on-going destabilisation of the whole Middle East. Arguably, to the very existence of the evil known variously as Islamic State, Isis or Daesh.
It has taken Sir John Chilcot seven years to report what most of us already knew - that the Iraq war was based on a false premise, sold to the public here and in America on a web of lies and waged with no plan for what would happen afterwards.
Lord Falconer put up a spirited defence of his old pal Tony Blair on Question Time last week. But there can be no real defence of Blair's detailed war-planning with Bush. And no truth in Falconer's suggestion that issues that are known now were not understood then.
The war - as I accurately predicted before it began - was never about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, which was Blair's pretext. It was about Bush's waning popularity in America, about selling weapons, about US imperialism, primarily about oil.
For saying that, I was called a traitor. My response: "In my opinion Blair is the traitor. He is guilty of subsuming his country's interests to those of a foreign power (the US), leading it into a war that four-fifths of its people don't want and increasing our risk of being hit by a major terrorist attack."
It added up, I suggested, to a case for impeachment.
Chilcot says only an international court can decide whether the war was legal. The International Criminal Court in The Hague says Blair cannot be tried there. But impeachment may yet be on the agenda.
It would be justice of a kind. Fairly mild justice, you might think, for breaking the Sixth Commandment so many times over.
Now, about those weapons of mass destruction. Saddam didn't have them, but Bush did, Blair did, and so did the leaders of France, Russia, India, Pakistan, China and probably Israel.
And while our political parties and commentators have their minds elsewhere, Parliament is about to consider the future of Britain's own WMD arsenal.
The debate over renewing Trident has been scheduled for next Monday - well timed to make the most of Labour's conflict over the issue (and everything else).
An opportunity is there to save an estimated £205billion. More if you take into account the massive cost of subsidising the whole nuclear industry, which is really there to support the weapons programme, as the official attitude to other nations' nuclear programmes makes clear.
That might almost undo at a stroke the financial damage inflicted on the country by the Brexit vote. Allow Britain to claim some of the real moral high ground. And make us all just a little bit safer.
Will it happen? I think you know the answer to that.