Hmmm, Cam you're lack of balance is showing. Clearly many sides are attempting to write & rewrite history. better at the bigger picture. 
Yeah I know, but you (or someone else) said one way, so I said the other. Both sides
are guilty of history rewrites, to some extent. Much like supporting a sports team (do you ever notice your own team breaking the rules?), everyone is one-eyed.
Again, the thing that gets me is the "end justifies the means" used by the anti-Bush crowd.
Seriously, I see this as the post-war Bush supporter rationale - there are no WMD, the war cost a lot, the UN didn't want us to invade, but
the end justifies the means.
They will attempt to rewrite in Saddams favor if it will bring Bush down a notch. (ie ''unjustified cuz you cant find the WMD - -nah-nah-n'-nah-nah")
I must reiterate the position of most every liberal (and other person) who didn't support the war. We are happy (delighted!) that Saddam was deposed (and subsequently caught) so easily. But, Todd's questions stand...
...because in February, the UN didn't say "you may
never invade Iraq". They said "wait for more proof". It would have come eventually, and if nothing else, the last 9 months have proved Saddam wasn't much of a threat to anyone but his own people.
And not supporting the war does not make one a Saddam apologist or anti-American.