"The most intellectually honest case for the war in Iraq was never about Saddam Hussein's alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. It was the Big Bang Theory."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301666_pf.html

This may or may not be true, but in terms legal reasons, we didn't include in the Gulf I cease fire agreement the requirement that Saddam develop a fairer and more democratic country of Iraq, nor were the more than dozen UN security Council resolutions pertaining to breaches in the cease fire agreement related to these matters. In short we had Zero legal standing in putting forth this as the primary reason to invade Iraq.
Had Iraq followed it's commitments as spelled out in the cease fire agreements, we wouldn't have had sanctions, nor would we have invaded Iraq- it's that simple.
In addition even disregarding all Saddam past failure to comply with the cease fire agreement, had Saddam immediately after 911 read the writing on the wall, and chose to comply with the cease fire agreement without *requiring* a 100,000 US soldier on his border, he could still have easily avoided an confrontation. He could have easily have taken the course that would left still in power today. Fortuately, tyrants generally make mistakes- big mistakes.

Continuing:
"Not to be confused with theories about the origins of the universe, the Middle East Big Bang idea was simple and seductive. Unlike other arguments for the war, it was based on some facts, though also on some wishful thinking."

They may have been *some* "wishful thinking" but there was also a lot of "negative thinking". Though the results so far has not been as good as the wildest hopes- the Iraqi people have achieved remarkable progress, and courage and determination of the Iraqi people was probably more imagined to be possible. And of course the Coalition forces have performed admirably.

Continuing:
"Today, with Israeli troops battling on their northern and southern borders, with Iran ignoring calls for negotiations on nuclear weapons, with Baghdad in flames and with many of Iraq's moderates living in fear, those Cheney sentences stand as the most telling indictment of the administration's failures."

Iran has been working on it's nuclear weapon program for about 16 years [before Gulf war I], during this administration through various means including work by the International Atomic committe, this weapons program has been exposed. Also during this administration Syria's decades long occupation of Lebanon has ended [though it's not really ended because Syria continues to interfere in various ways with Lebanon- and one of these is it's support of Hezbollah]

Continuing:
"Whether one ascribes these troubles to the flawed implementation of the Big Bang Theory or to the theory itself, what matters now is how to limit and, if possible, undo some of the damage.

That is what the American debate should be about, but those in charge of Republican campaigns this year have another idea. They have hit upon the brilliant strategy of pushing any serious discussion of the failure of American foreign policy past Election Day. For the next 3 1/2 months, they want the choice before the voters to be binary: staying the course and being "tough," or breaking with President Bush's policy and being "soft." There are just two options on the ballot, they say: firmness or "cut and run." "
You debate with the debate which you have. Dems have chosen to debate of cut and run. The Dems can change the debate, I think it's good idea, because the track they chosen is ruinous for their party and country in general. But it's silly to blame focusing attention on the cut and run vs stay the course debate on Reps- it's something the Dems have handed to them on a silver plater.

Continuing:
"By late November of this year, the United States will have been at war in Iraq for as long as we were involved in World War II. Under those circumstances, the burden of proof should not be on those who argue for changing what we're doing. It should be on those who set a failed policy in motion and keep promising, despite the evidence, that it will somehow pay off if only we "stay the course." "
This is of course wrong. Major combat operation ended around the time Bush landed on that Aircraft carrier. And we still have troops in Germany and Japan. And we still trying to nation build Kosovo- a dinky little country Clinton got us involved with.
Coalition occupation ended over a year ago in Iraq. The GWOT could be said to be lasting longer than WWII- at least in regards to America involvement [for Japan the WWII was for decades and Germany more than a decade- with England and France being involved longer than the isolationist America].