Was that not something any Republican administration should have anticipated? Was the press and its nature something they were unaware of? Were Democrats and their nature something the Bush administration should have been surprised by?
Again, why spend a trillion dollars over a five year period to build a nation when doing so resulted in one's political enemies beating us over the head with it and then they let that nation collapse in chaos anyway? (to say nothing of the fact that the nation that emerged was more loyal to Iran than us)
Iraq was a failed policy not because bringing civility to the Middle East wasn't a good idea, but because of the administration's failure to anticipate all of the political consequences, and how those consequences would render the entire thing moot in the end.
Of course, they should have anticipated the hostile response of the media to the war in Iraq. But, even given that, should they have not gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, given that he was, indeed, a threat, simply because they anticipated how the left would react?
If they truly believed, as I still think they did, that freeing the Iraqi people from brutality and giving them a chance for self-determination, was the right thing to do; that all people around the world desire liberty, should they not invade Iraq because the left would attack them for it?
If you look at what George W. Bush has done since his presidency, if you look even momentarily at the Bush Institute, you will see that he is continuing to fight for liberty for the oppressed people around the world.......including those who suffer under religious persecution.
Agree with it or not, it's what he really believes.
And the 20/20 hindsight of what the Marxist, incompetent President who followed him has done, is nice, but I'm not sure you can use it to condemn the entire effort in Iraq.