ad Fact 2:
see above. Additionally it was already pointed out that there is a difference between no confirmation of the destruction of weapons that are assumed to exist and the existence of these weapons. Though again, personally I think, that Iraq has them.

ad Fact 3/4:
Okay. I'll come to that later

ad Fact 5:
Again I'd like to differ here. First, their connection to Hanas/IJ. Yes, they are terrorists. And yes, he has supported them. But then again I think that there is a difference between them and international terror groups like Al Quaida. Which? Well, they fight within their own borders against a superior power that violently oppresses their people. So - with all disgust against hitting civilians - one could still call that guerilla warfare, too (I somewhat share elessar's point of view in that).

Now for Al Quaida. Bush repeatedly either connected them directly with Iraq or at least tried to imply that - playing with the emotions of the Americans. Again official CIA point of view is that Iraq has absolutely no connection to them and doesn't want it either. Stated by Tenet in his monthly letter to the congress on October 10th (see here)

ad Fact 7:
Again, I'll come to that later.

ad Fact 8:
So is the US when they start a war without mandate

ad Fact 9:
By Al Quaida, that has no connection with the Iraq (see 5.)

ad Fact 10:
Well, they claim to be. All they have done until now is: (a) Change the regime in Afghanistan. A good thing, but then again they really helped in putting them there in the first place... (b) imprison people without concrete charge or the possibility of defense for quite a long time now in Guantanamo (c) really tried to make the USA everything but a free democracy with their "anti-terror" laws and "patriot acts"

Now for the facts I didn't reply to and some additional statements:
They have lost the war, agreed to disarm and didn't do so. So they should be made to disarm. Ok. But why start a war that will further destabilize the whole middle east, vastly improve the chance of terrorist attacks against the USA and the western world, make Saddam actually consider using what he still has buried somewhere in the desert and kill 1000s of lifes when the weapons inspections can still be effective (as shown with the destruction of those missiles of his)? If the USA was willing to put all that money, intelligence and manpower into a thorough inspection that they are willing to put into a war the job of Blix and his fellows would be a piece of cake... (Oh and by the way: If I were in Saddam's place and had the choice between being attacked by the USA and stripping to my pants by throwing away all my defenses and still being attacked - because they want my head not my weapons - I would cling to each piece of weaponry as if my life depended on it...because it actually might)

So this leads me to your conjectures:

ad Conjecture 1:
Make inspections not war :)

ad Conjecture 2:
Only partly correct (see 5.) and plain wrong in the way Bush likes to put it.

ad Conjecture 3:
Well, by all means disarm Iraq. And make really good plans for an Iraq after Saddam to stabilize the region and help the Iraqi people to rebuild a nation. And then perhaps when that is done go ahead and remove him. But a war is not the way to do so. With the rather good position Saddam still has in his own country it is quite unlikely that removing Saddam could be achieved without mass amounts of innocent blood being spilled on the way to his palaces...