Vindication of Bush's Iraq War Policy

There has been some talk (specifically just on the Daily Show) referring to history's future vindication of President Bush's Iraq War Policy.

I just can't believe it.

Here's the facts that history will have to overcome in order to vindicate our soon to be ex-President.

1. President Bush and his Administration LIED to us regarding weapons of mass destruction, imminent threats, links to Al Qaeda, and that the war was not about oil.
2. Donald Rumsfelds failed policy of a fast and light, specialized military, quick in/quick out, and his superiors' inability to admit its failings for YEARS.
3. The Commander in Chief continuously failing to plan (to this day) an actual campaign. If he were a chess player, he would be aware of opening, middle, and end game, and how a commander uses strategy to achieve an end. Strategy is a MEANS to an end. The "surge" was a STRATEGY, not a policy. I think ALL of the success in Iraq belongs to the soldiers serving in uniform, be they Privates, or Generals. I think it is a SHAME that our President takes credit for being a success due to our military's unmatched competence, courage, and skill, while still neglecting HIS job, but he is leaving all that confusing stuff for the next guy.
4. Weapons of Mass Destruction?
5. Decision being made based on personal bias "he tried to kill my Dad..."
6. Decisions from the White House regarding the legality of torture (extreme interrogation) and orders to soldiers and other operatives, policies both implicit and explicit, only to leave the individual soldiers who did wrong, but under orders to do so, out in the cold.
7. FREE SPEECH ZONES

This is not a complete list.

For anyone that claims that the war is not about oil, you are being naive. It is only partially about oil, but it is most certainly NOT about the liberation of Iraqis, or the ousting of Saddam Hussein. It is about American Strategic interests in the region. Oil is a top strategic interest. Iran, and the power and sway they have with the entire Muslim world, is a major strategic interest. In the past eight years we have managed to invade the two countries on either side of Iran. Hmm.

------------- --------------- --------------------------
| Iraq | | Iran | | Afghanistan |
------------- --------------- --------------------------

I can't believe that something as obvious as that goes over everyone's heads. We are at the very least using these wars as hard bargaining with the Iranians, threatening military force by our very presence.
In other words, the reasons can't be fit on a bumper sticker. Unless maybe its this one.

How many have to die
to advance our
Strategic Interests?

Also, I remember having a conversation with my brother, in Feb, possibly March of 2003, in which we were discussing the possibility of a war in Iraq, when I brought up the possibility of it being better to fight "them" over there instead of over here. Essentially, the thinking went as such.
Terrorist = Enemy
Terrorist Home = Nowhere
American Might = Military
Iraq = Terrorists New Home
Military = Kick rag tag Terrorists Asses in open combat
Strategic Interests= Advanced

But, then I considered that a terrorist does not engage in open combat. A terrorist uses the terror of the threat that he will blow up a building, or a bridge, or a plane, or a school.
These are those who took down our towers, not a standing army.
19 guys.
No warning.
Creating a battlefield to fight an enemy with no motivation for open combat = bad idea

About a year later I began to hear that argument being used to defend the Iraq war by pundits on TV. That was one of the first times that I really thought that our entire system is being run by morons.
I began to be truly terrified.

I was not shocked that morons were on TV, but I was shocked by how transparent the arguments on either side became. Facts were simply things to be manipulated in order to advance policy, specifically public support of policy.

The truth had become obsolete.
The facts would soon vindicate Bush's policy.