The point is that you give Saddam enough rope to hang himself. If he did follow through with the democratic elections was beaten, and didn't step down, we've got thousands of FBI and CIA guys on the ground in Iraq, there to call it. At that time we actually have real evidence we can give to build support, and he gets taken out anyway. Nobody is saying that they are pro SH. But what you call a bluff turned out to be what he was really holding in his hand. You also bring up 'the info we had at the time'. That's all the more reason to get a couple thousand intel agents on the ground to make sure we had the right info. The only reason I can think of for not doing this is if you are afraid that the right info might not lead up to war that you are hoping for.
If you think that everyone who is against this war is PRO-SH, you are bordering on mental incapacity. He directly offered to hold democratic elections that could have been supervised by the 2000 CIA and FBI agents that SH invited to come in and complete the work that the weapons inspectors were doing. BTW, the info we had at the time showed that SH was not a threat to us and did not have stockpiles of WMDs. How was it a bluff? It remains to be seen how it will play out, but it may well have been better for SH to stay in power until democratic elections could be held. If a civil war erupts after we leave, we will know that this is the case.
Since SH was not a threat, why even ask the question? Remember that at the start of the Iraq invasion, we had economic sanctions in place and no-fly zones in both the north and the south. SH at best was a paper tiger.
