"There was no way to meet Bush's "reasonable demands", because they were a fiction. Bush was never serious about offering Saddam any options, that was all cynical window-dressing. The decision to go to war was a done deal a year ago."

Saddam just had to follow UN resolution 1441. No security member had thought that Saddam had complied with the cease fire agreement requiring the Iraq regime to disarm of WMD and have this verified. The fact the Saddam had not complied with this cease fire agreement starting '91 is the reason that UN security council voted 15-0 in favor of 1441. After 1441 had been passed no Nation other than Iraq had claimed that Iraq was following 1441. Lots of nations may have said things like Iraq was acting more favorable, but none could say Iraq was fully cooperating. It was because Iraq was not fully cooperating, that made the US and coalition make decision that regime change was the only way to make Iraq comply with 1441.
Now, also it's not disputed that the only reason Iraq was in any way "working towards" disarming WMD was because the coalition was preparing a miltary force which was capable of invading Iraq. Iraq did not want to fulfill it's obligation, it's only when there was a serious possiblity that the "cease fire" would be "nullified" did Saddam take calculating steps towards "appearing to cooperate"- "somewhat, kinda sorta". The Coalition simply did not accept this & only those nations wishing that hostilities could avoided at any "cost" who did not come to this conclusion.

So it's not the case that only the coalition of the willing had thought Iraq had WMD. Nor was the evidence offered by the US CIA the reason other nation had thought Iraq had WMD. The reason all nations were convinced that Iraq had WMD is because that during the 12 years, evidence was found by UN weapon inspectors indicating that there were WMD that Iraq had not declared. The question that all nation (anyone who looked at the evidence) wasn't whether Iraq had WMD. The only question was "what to do about it". According to any who examined the record, Iraq had violated a cease fire agreement, therefore that means that the Coalition had the legal right to resume warfare. Now, there were also other reasons- such as Iraq commiting hostile acts against the US miltary, Iraq stating it was a war with the US, and other more "minor" reasons. But since treaty type violation agreements are considered to highest form of international law (the US supeme court has even ruled they even surpass our own sovereign power [which I happen to think is foolish] it's *even* conceivable (though granted it would extremely unlikely and *totally weird*) that the President could be "charged" as derelict to obligation imposed by a treaty, if he had "failed" to go to war [of course "when" he had to go to war was "uncertain" thereby making this case nearly impossible to make]. In other words a treaty type agreement has more authority then the President, Congress, and/or the Supreme Court (yes, of course this is silly- because there is no authority higher than a sovereign power [esp, when this nation happens to have 10,000 nuclear warheads plus has strongest conventional miltary force on the planet:]).