Saddam wanted WMD? I want a million dollars! Your point?

Iraq and Saddam hated each other. They were not working together. That's been debunked.

When is it permissible for citizens to criticize their government Jim? And at what point do you and your ilk begin demanding imprisionment for those who do, labeling them traitors? Why do you want to be in the US, if you want it to be run by a tinhorn caudillo with visions of monarchy dancing in his head?

The rest of your rant? Stale warmed over "stay the course in Vietnam" talking points.  

Regarding the motivations of the insurgents I interrogated in Iraq, a week ago I wrote:

The vast majority of them weren't radical Muslims, bin Laden acolytes or Saddam hardliners; they were motivated by nationalism. They opposed the U.S. occupation of what they saw as their sovereign land (silly them!) so they lashed out in the most meaningful way they could: at the "collaborators" in their midst aiding and abetting the occupying, colonial power. It's basic insurgency doctrine, folks. In my experience, "religious fanaticism" is the veneer that some in Iraq, and even more in the West, use to cover what is essentially the struggle to get out from under the thumb of a strongman.
...
I saw this dynamic when I was an interrogator in Iraq. Coalition forces would arrest an insurgent, humiliate him in front of his family, keep him in prison for months, and then release him without charges. In the meantime he learned to hate us (even if he hadn't before) and, more importantly, his family learned to hate us. While he was learning to hate us, he was in a population that was uniquely qualified to fan the flames of his hatred and teach him how he might better act on it. Meanwhile his family and close friends were now easy targets for recruitment. In getting rid of one "terrorist," we created several.

The view that AQI is neither as big nor as lethal as commonly believed is widespread among working-level analysts and troops on the ground. A majority of those interviewed for this article believe that the military's AQI estimates are overblown to varying degrees. If such misgivings are common, why haven't doubts pricked the public debate? The reason is that alternate views are running up against an echo chamber of powerful players all with an interest in hyping AQI's role.
...
AQI's presence is tolerated by the country's Sunni Arabs, historically among the most secular in the Middle East, because they have a common enemy in the United States. Absent this shared cause, it's not clear that native insurgents would still welcome AQI forces working to impose strict sharia. In Baghdad, any near-term functioning government will likely be an alliance of Shiites and Kurds, two groups unlikely to accept organized radical Sunni Arab militants within their borders. Yet while precisely predicting future political dynamics in Iraq is uncertain, one thing is clear now: the continued American occupation of Iraq is al-Qaeda's best recruitment tool, the lure to hook new recruits. As RAND's Ali said, "What inspires jihadis today is Iraq."

Five years ago, the American public was asked to support the invasion of Iraq based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to al-Qaeda. Today, the erroneous belief that al-Qaeda's franchise in Iraq is a driving force behind the chaos in that country may be setting us up for a similar mistake.

Its clear conservatives and their social liberal ally who  basis his vote on national security  don't care about the dead in Vietnam or Iraq. They only care about making polticial points.

Iraq is the GOP war (and the war of their social liberal ally who  basis his vote on national security). It will always be their war and its costs will always be taxed to them. Who lost Iraq? They did.

And why doesn't it make any difference? There is nothing forcing us to be there (other than the madman occupying the Oval Office and his few supporters).  Terrorists in Iraq is but a fraction of the groups in Iraq. It is a civil war Jim. AQI is between 8% to 15% of the groups fighting in Iraq. Have you run out of honest arguments?