The strategic blunder wasn't about getting rid of Hussein. The strategic blunder was in going into Iraq without the will to deal with (especially) Syria and Iran when they predictably began to fuel the insurgencies.
Unfortunately, it seems like the Administration thought the taste of Democracy (a la Eastern Europe) would spark a wave of patriotism and a willingness to come together to have said Democracy. But these aren't Christian Europeans. These are Islamic peoples who have nothing but a history of living by force and subduing by force and being commanded by force. The elections should have borne some sort of willingness of the Iraqi street to clean out the insurgents and take control of their country. Instead, they've been cowed to the sidelines while Zarqawi and his ilk run roughshod over whatever they can lay their hands on. Meanwhile, the Shiites and Sunnis haven't been willing to meet halfway in the spirit of ironing out a government that people can look to for leadership.
Everyone cracks out the word "desperation" when a mosque gets bond. I dunno - until we start seeing some concrete rooting out of the insurgents and a willingness of the Iraqi street to crush these fools, it looks like power to me.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a failure (Saddam is out of power, that's for sure), but it's not going well. And if Saddam Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, can enjoy turning his own trial into a theatrical circus, what about the rest of Iraq?
"bond" should be "bombed"
I would not accuse this Administration of lacking will. Now, you might not agree with its timetable. So be it. But Iran was not included in the Jan '03 "Axis of Evil" speech (and mentioned again in the '06 SOTU speech) just because...