I found this article from Slate linked on Andrew Sullivan's site today. It is an analysis/criticism of President Bush, and I think it does a great job of summing up what I don't like about George Bush without falling into the horrible traps that other critics fall into way too much of the time.
First of all, it doesn't say that the war in Iraq was unequivocally a bad idea. I can appreciate a lot of the criticisms over the intelligence and a great many other things related to the war in Iraq.
- In recent months, congressional hearings and document leaks have unearthed a disturbing history. Again and again in 2001 and 2002, U.S. intelligence agencies sent signals that Bush was wrong. The FBI and CIA debunked putative links between Iraq and al-Qaida. The CIA rejected the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. In its National Intelligence Estimate, the CIA calculated that it could take Saddam up to five years to make a nuclear weapon and that he would transfer WMD to terrorists only if he were invaded.
I didn't want to be in that war originally either. My problem with criticisms today is that people want to say that Bush flat-out lied, when I think that is a bit too much. He used intelligence (suspect or not) and came to conclusions (right or not.) This is no more blatant than anything that any other politician engages in on a daily basis.
Then, people confuse the fact that they don't like the war with the war's success. This war has not had a ridiculous amount of casualties and has been relatively successful. It isn't easy and it isn't over, but it hasn't been the disaster that a lot of critics would like to claim it is.