I completely agree.  He surrounds himself with people who won't challenge him (take the Social Security "town halls" as an example).  That's why he had a horrible showing at the debates against John Kerry, he wasn't used to being confronted directly.  His leadership style and "diplomacy" is akin to a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum.  I will never understand how he got 51% of the vote, regardless of Kerry's performance as a candidate.

We are condemned to kill time, thus we die bit by bit - Octavio Paz / Latino Político

Iraqis could have benefitted from regime change, theoretically.  If the UN and Europe and the regional players had all been unified, we might have been able to force Saddam to resign.  Failing that we would have had the credibility and resources to quickly rebuild Iraq as part of a truly international coalition.

Look how far short of that Bush fell?

Sure, but it was not only Bush who fell short there.  The same could be said for France, Russia, and other states who allowed their corrupt ties to Saddam, or just pure selfishness or spite, to prevent them from joining in.  Sure, Bush had thumbed his nose at the world in the way he dealt with them on a number of occasions, not least Kyoto and the ABM treaty.  But other nations should have risen above this pettiness.  (My all-around favourite nation, the Netherlands, did so.)

What is there to support in their post-war plan?

They screwed up a lot post-war, I agree.  But more credibility and leverage belongs to those who weren't naysayers from the beginning, those who said "yes, let's do it--but let's do it right".  If you said "don't do it" and still say "we shouldn't be doing it" why should anyone listen to your "here's how we're doing it wrong"?

And one of the major reasons he failed was his greed.  He wouldn't share any contracts, or honor existing contracts.

No disagreement from me.  Bushco is a major example of crony capitalism (in contrast to their supposed admiration for Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the free market, they prefer to use the taxing and regulatory powers of government not for the greater good, but for the selective benefit of their biggest donours and other friends and insiders).  But so is Jacques Chirac.  You don't think he was looking out for his corporate buddies in France who were in bed with Saddam?  (Putin's case is similar, but I'm not sure it even qualifies as "crony capitalism" so much as straight up corruption.)

Alan
Maverick Leftist