Why? For stating the obvious? I voted for Dubya 4 (count 'em, 4 times), and had I not already been retired would have given my right arm to be in one of those tanks roaring towards Baghdad.
But guess what?
We screwed it up. And now its too late to 'fix' it. Had we left Saddam in place, we could have gone lighter with bombing and special ops against al Quaeda elsewhere.
Now we've wound up destabilizing the entire area and strenthened Iran's hand - do you really think they are afraid that we'll start another war because of their nuke program? They sure don't act like it, do they? Because they know that America has run out of will during its segue into Iraq.
Now, are the Iraqis better off today? (Ask me if I care.) Economically, for sure. Do they feel safer? Who the hell knows? Would you feel safe with two dozen different sectarian militias running around killing people?
I will not eat HEAP crow by saying this:
"Sometimes those 'stability first and foremost', and screw what kind of regimes they have" crowd is NOT always wrong.
Put simply, if you're gonna invade barbarian nations, you better do it 'Roman style' and lay waste to everything. If you intend to play by modern 'enlightened western' rules, you'd better stay out.
I know one thing - whoever succeed's Dubya will have a lot LESS of a free hand to deal with our enemies abroad than had we left Iraq the hell alone, and continued our 'Afghan strategy' wherever needed.
Now you will excuse me. My mouth is so full of feathers I think I'll go throw up.
You're right about one thing: your mouth is full of feathers.