Ann is building a case that we should have invaded Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein. She brings some facts together supporting her argument. So far so good.
But she ignores information that doesn't support her argument. She doesn't discuss the conditions that complicated the outcome in Iraq. She ridicules those who would disagree with her.
An opinion columnist can do something like that. A policy maker, a decider in chief, can't. If you're going to make the decision to go to war you have to examine all the evidence and consider both sides of the question.
That's why we should be glad that Ann Coulter isn't making policy. She doesn't weigh one argument against another to come to a considered conclusion. She says the most provocative thing she can in the most provocative way and doesn't think it through to the consequences. That's her right as a columnist, but it's no way to make foreign policy.
Unforeseen events such as the election of Obama do not make her answer wrong. It seems you are unable to keep both things in your head at the same time: how things were then and how they are now. Bush’s decision did not cause the election of Obama and the subsequent chaos in the Middle East. That was accomplished by the persistent lies and Bush Derangement Syndrome and demonization of the Republicans, not by Bush’s action, which was correct at the time and so is Ann in saying it was.
Was, at that time. Get it?