Be my guest, blame it to the other countries, blame it to the UN, blame the war YOUR country started to other countries, as I've read for more than a year.
I remember Rumsfeld considering a 6 months long war, at the most, but several weeks later had to change his mind.
I remember you also thought of questioning the need for a war but rather than criticizing your president felt it was better to blame France instead.

If you don't want the UN to get involved, more US soldiers will and more will die and the US will feel the full blunt of the humiliation, rather than the international community.

The problem is that Bush can't win unless there is democracy in Iraq but the number of mistakes, faults and misjudgements he committed lead us to think he simply has no reliable plan for democracy in that country.

Reasons:

Iraq won't accept democracy imposed by force; it's a matter of national pride. We've seen how quickly nationalism unites shi-ites to sunnis.

Iraq has no tradition, culture or history of democracy, nor are its neighbours democratic countries. (Time and space without democratic experience).

Democracy is a contract between the population and the government. The people abide by and to the law and the elected people create a constitution instituting basic liberties and the possibility for the people to elect another government after a maximum of x years.
By essence, democracies are WEAK because they are open , free, tolerant.

If the Kuran and democracy cannot mix (this could positively evolve in closer countries to Europe like Morocco), then the Shi-ites will demand elections, obtain them , win them and go after the Baathists (who are more experienced with the institutions) and ask for revenge.
Civil war.... Shi-ite government which in their mind will have to be strong, tough, like it has always been the case before.
It will be return to square one.
And with the enormous risk of an Islamist government.
It may not have been Saddam who made Iraq, but Iraq that made Saddam.

Raoul