In These Times has constructed a pretty solid case for the Bush administration knowing a) there were no WMD in Iraq; and b) there was no Iraq/al-Qaeda connection as it built its case for attacking that country.
While Bush now says he would have done it anyway, the invasion and subsequent and lengthy occupation have been bungled in nearly every way, shape or form possible. This includes:
*not ensuring full UN backing prior to invading
*not securing Iraq’s borders, allowing all forms of enemy combatants to enter the country unchecked
*not sending enough coalition forces to secure the country from looting (the power grid was destroyed during the occupation, not during the attack) despite the army’s recommendation
*wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on unchecked no-bid contracts to cronies like Halliburton and Bechtel
*creating a policy that engendered a dangerous atmosphere in prisons, opening the door to the kind of abuse Bush himself cited as justification for the “regime change”
*attempting to install a puppet regime, which further delayed the stabilization of Iraq
*firing outright rather than screening the Iraqi army for potential building blocks for a new army
*not protecting soldiers by outfitting them with 21st century protective gear and vehicles
And on and on.
I’m sure every war has had its share of deadly gaffes, but since this war was launched on false grounds to begin with, the fact that nearly a thousand GIs and countless Iraqis have died as a result of bad planning and execution is just unforgivable, to me anyway.