This is a perfect example of "not letting the facts get in the way of a good story". Yes, there is room for debate about whether the U.S. should or should not have gone to war with Iraq. But, anyone with an small amount of intellectual honesty and objectivity, anyone who is willing to look at the facts leading up to and surrounding the decision would have to conclude that there were at least some valid reasons for deposing Saddam Hussein.
To me the facts in play at the time the decision was made were sufficient to give the mission a go. Virtually every major intellegence operation in the world was in agreement that Hussein had WMD. Everyone agreed that Hussein's government was corrupt and that he was murdering his own people on a regular basis, and that he had indeed used WMD in the past.
The fact that we didn't find WMD in Iraq was not an example of Bush allowing facts to get in the way of a good story. On the contrary, if what that major intelligence agencies of the world were saying about WMD and Iraq was true it probably would have been irresponsible for Bush not to give the mission a go. I can hear the loyal opposition's hue and cry had Bush not given the mission a go, only to have Iraqi WMD used someplace in the world, or worse here in the U.S. Yes, then the loyal opposition would have been crying impeachment, off with his head, etc.
In my view, given the facts in play at the time, Bush (or any other President) was damned if he did and potentially damned if he didn't. If there were ever a catch 22 situation the Iragi situation is/was it.
Nice try, but no 
