Mlsoft, I understand all of that, honestly. But, imo, the "reasons" given for war never made sense. Altho there was an effort to insinuate a connection between Saddam and Osama et al, no facts were ever offered to back that up. And the fear card was used excessively.
We were told that DC knew where the weapons were, and they were among the most lethal. We were told we could not afford to wait for the UN to finish it's inspections because Saddam posed such an immediate threat to our safety. There was not time for international "diplomacy". Yet, Saddam was not even able to mount any kind of defense on his home turf. We were told we had to act unilaterally, if necessary, regardless of the foreign policy implications. Safety first!! It was insinuated that the UN was inept, or worse... And everyone else was WRONG! We were told lots of things and what has been created is a diplomatic and foreign policy fiasco. The US has lost credibility in the global community, and is viewed as the villian. There are serious residual effects...
Saddam is a rotten guy, no question. But there are too many rotten guys, globally. Is the world a better place without Saddam? Absolutely! But given the ideology in the region, what comes after Saddam? And what is our responsibility to the world and really rotten leaders? What is the global community's responsibility? And what is the US's responsibility to "get along" in the global community?? Certainly, we do not make policy based on global sentiment, but there is a responsibility to consider and understand sentiment, at least. And there are ramifications for not doing so...
In the US, the Executive Branch needs Congressional approval to launch a war. There were reasons to question the "drums of war" leading up to "Shock & Awe". And it was our responsibility to question as part of our democratic system. And the "case" for war didn't exactly pass the logic test, as a whole. Even Wolfie said they "settled on WMD" which indicates the "case" might have been made somewhat disingenuously - because all motives or the "real" motives were not known, or disclosed. So, I would not be at all surprised if the Admin did "embellish" the "case" somewhat. Would you? Did they embellish? Were false and/or misleading statements made, or was this perhaps the greatest intelligence failure of all times??... Neither you nor I know for sure. But it requires investigation.
If false and or misleading info was intentionally offered to gain Congressional and international approval for war, that is a MOST SERIOUS offense, and We have a responsibility to see that Constitutional and international law are upheld. If it was a case of bad info, ie and "intelligence failure", then We (the greatest Super Power) do not go to war (risking American lives & killing people) on bad info, obviously. There has to be higher standards of scrutiny and gov, in general. The Pres and fedl gov answer to We the People, ultimately. And they've got some splainin' to do in DC... :)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
