Rik,
It is certainly possible that your general view of things is right. This seems to me to be an area that perfect knowledge is not possible.
The problem I see with your view is that there is another possibility that seems much more likely to be true. The Iraq war/occupation has gone on for more than five years. The architects of the war have been repeatedly shown to be wrong, inept and corrupt.
At what point does it become reasonable to discount their ideas and look towards a new approach? For some people, such as yourself, that answer seems to be never. You believed in the war and the people that initiated it initially and no new set of facts seems to shake your resolution that you were right to begin with and you are right now.
Last year many in the US waited hopefully for the results of the Iraq Study Group. The idea was that a fresh non-partisan set of eyes looking at the problem might give guidance for a different approach. Bush, is reported to not have asked anybody involved with generating the report one question. Why? Was it because Bush was so well versed in the details of the situation that he had no need for an outside opinion? Or was it because Bush is so driven by his ego that he sees doing anything that suggests that his gut feel is not perfect as unacceptable?
I found this part of the article linked to by hgc as particularly telling:
Forty democratic senators were gathered for a lunch in March just off the Senate floor. I was there as a guest speaker. Joe Biden was telling a story, a story about the president. ''I was in the Oval Office a few months after we swept into Baghdad,'' he began, ''and I was telling the president of my many concerns'' -- concerns about growing problems winning the peace, the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and problems securing the oil fields. Bush, Biden recalled, just looked at him, unflappably sure that the United States was on the right course and that all was well. '''Mr. President,' I finally said, 'How can you be so sure when you know you don't know the facts?''' Biden said that Bush stood up and put his hand on the senator's shoulder. ''My instincts,'' he said. ''My instincts.''
Suppose that Bush's instincts have nothing to do with what is good for the US and everything to do with what makes Bush feel good?
You are convinced that the US occupation of Iraq is making things better and you see Iran as this great threat to world peace. Why? Where is the evidence that the US open ended occupation of Iraq has done anything but make Iraq worse off? Isn't the belligerent posturing and actions of Iran a predictable result of US saber rattling for the last four years? There seems to be some sort of gut feel with the pro war crowd that if the US wasn't there all hell would break lose. Maybe and maybe if the US gave a timetable for its withdrawal the various Iraqi factions would understand the need to work towards some sort of political accommodation in a hurry and that the US wasn't going to be there for the long term to protect any particular faction. Not only would a timetable motivate the Iraqis, it might motivate the American leadership to use negotiation rather than threats and violence as a means of ending this conflict.
Out of nowhere, it appears that the US has begun to talk with Syria and Iran. Maybe putting a little pressure on this administration and making it clear to them that their grandiose war plans were not going to be supported has given them some new incentives to begin to talk with people.
So while I acknowledge once again that your overall view of this situation might be right, it looks to me like it is long past overdue to begin to constrain this president from using his instincts to make decisions with regard to Iraq and Iran.
And as just a small personal aside, I think that characterizing opponents of Bush and Iraq policies as left wing is a lame attempt to substitute emotion for analysis. There are many people on the right who are none too keen on this president and his war either.
