"The way I interpret Raoul's words (maybe through the filter of what I think) is that Bush chose to go to war against Iraq because the war on terrorism seemed to have stalled and he needed a (relatively) easy victory for political reasons."

Similar argument was used when Clinton started an unpopular war- I didn't buy it then, did you?
The other problem with this is that without the War with Iraq, Bush probably have easily have gotten his tax package through (unless you think he actually doesn't wants his tax package). As far as "the rest" of the war of terrorism it's still doing fine. Bush could have just as easily focused more on Afghanstan if political gain was his main purpose. The "popular" question of whether Bin laden is dead or not isn't *really* that important- not for politic or practical matters.
Another problem with this view, is that serious minded people considered Iraq a problem. Clinton didn't simply drop it- that would have been at in the short term an easy political choice. Bring our troops home from the no fly zone and leave Saudi Arbian to fend for itself, and lift sanctions so
"all the poor people of Iraq could get food". The point you seem to miss is that everyone who had two brain cells to use, knew that Saddam's regime was a problem, if it wasn't a problem, why did we waste billions dallars over a decade of time, trying contain Iraq. And finally, to not understand why we had to change the Iraq regime, today, with the mountain of evidence that shows what kind of regime this was, is a wonder in how delusional a person can be.

"I also think that it was deliberately personalized against Saddam for a reason: To make Saddam Hussein a proxy for Osama bin Laden. If we couldn't have the satisfaction of seeing Osama's bloody corpse being dragged through Manhattan, killing Saddam Hussein would at least be a consolation prize."
Look the problem with Iraq was their leadership- the people weren't the problem and currently they aren't the problem. And also knowing bin laden is dead, doesn't help- we still have a war of terrorism after this guy is dead, so by having a corpse, it might make people think the war against terrorism is over. It's not over, it will take at least years, maybe decades. Having a corpse would be a victory, but it's a battle victory, not a war victory.

"Given the shaky grasp of too many Americans of world affairs and geography, I wonder sometimes if the distinction between the two has been blurred by a year of relentless propaganda from the Bush Administration. That would certainly be politically useful for Bush, and I trust Karl Rove to do whatever it takes to get his boy reelected in 2004."

Why not use the term spin instead of propaganda. We do have a free press unlike some countries who do have actual propaganda- such as Iraq had over a month ago. Yes, the Bush adminstration has certain policies, and yes, people in the adminstration follow this policy, and say things which align to a policy. All democracies do this.
And yes, lots of Americans don't pay much attention to what is going on in the rest of the world. Though there is also a lot of Americans who are very well informed of what going on in the rest of the world.

"There's an undeniable element of politics in the war. It can't be swept under the rug."

And you want less politics involved in war??