Iraq was never about 9/11. The error of Iraq happened because the US followed one HUMINT source Saddam was developing WMD. Considering bin Laden was in Pakistan, it would presumably require a multi-source confirmation.
The invasion of Iraq was sold in part by manufacturing a connection to 9/11. This is confirmed by public opinion [1]:
> In the months leading up to the war, sizable majorities of Americans believed ... that Iraq was closely tied to terrorism – and even that Hussein himself had a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Believing one source is simply looking for justification for what you were going to do anyway. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary, not th eleast of which was the UNSCOM inspections.
Also, it's just plain illogical for Saddam to have WMDs. Let's say he has WMDs. If the US invades, would he use them? Probably not because it wouldn't change the outcome and it would invite further retaliation. So if he's not going to use them, why not give them up to save his regime?
This isn't historical 20/20 hindsight either. These discussions were being had prior to the invasion.
