Let's see:
1] Lying. President nor others in his leadership lied.
2] Saddam was never an ally: And he become an enemy when he invaded Kuwait and remained an enemy until we dragged him out of a hole he was hiding in. No one had any delusions about this- Saddam consider himself an enemy of the US- he bragged about it. The Clinton administeration did not conceal this fact- they called for overthrow of Saddam's regime. Only people who can twist their minds to such as extent that they call terrorists, "freedom fighters", are capable of the treasoness thinking that allows them to consider this mass murderer an ally. With Stalin at least this mass murderer agreed to work with the Allies [because Hilter proved he was a greater threat than the "Imperialists"- of course Stalin's alliance only lasted until Hilter's regime was overthrown- despite the efforts by the Americans to "win him over". Even if we could somehow convince Saddam to be an ally against terrorists, and he had a golden opportunity to do this- but instead chose to cheer 911, the only result would be to strengthen his regime which would repeat what the Soviets did]. To repeat Saddam was NEVER an US ally- that's just a twisted conspiracy theory the Left wants to promote.
3] Scandal. The real scandal is the Oil for Food program. And the UN considering itself beyond the law. Isn't it "accepted" that any govt REQUIRES transparency, and with this a means of checks and balances? Is the UN a democratic institution or is it so largely influenced by dicatorial regimes that it's mostly dicatorial nature rather than democratic. Why is the America tax payers required to pay money towards this corrupt institution?
4] A wacky conspiracy theory regarding Iraq. Not really worth commenting on, but why could this same theory be appied to say the French or the Chinese? Our real allies in the middle east are Turkey, Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These are not countries we control, but nevertheless are willing to work with us, sometimes, about as much an ally as say France. We have already handed back Iraq soveriegnty- unlike say what Syria has done in regards to Lebanon which has occupied for decades. We fully behind the notion that Iraq should have free election in Jan. Other than "goodwill" which doesn't neccessarily have a long shelf life, why should Iraq be easier to influence than say Turkey- who even though an NATO member, wouldn't allow our troops to travel through it's country- which btw had a serious affect on how we conducted the war in Iraq.