"There was no talk (that I remember) about lifting sanctions or no-fly zones?"

Well there was:

"Last Updated: Aug. 14, 2000

It's time to take another weapon out of the hands of Saddam Hussein, to reduce his control over events and Iraq's people and to again expose him for the brutal despot he is. It's time to lift the U.N. sanctions against Iraq."
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/editorials/aug00/iraq-edit081200.asp

Now, Bush didn't voice this option [nor Clinton], but there was a lot talk about it and other nations were pushing for it.
It wasn't going to happen once Bush started putting ground forces into Kuwait. But before this process began [including the diplomacy with countries in the region- which signaled this intention of adding ground force], it could have been an option.

"It turns out Saddam had no "robust, stubborn and dedicated nuclear weapons program". The "swamp" was dry when we got there. Saddam used the camouflage of WMD to cover his lack of power from the world and his own military."
This may be somewhat correct, but Saddam had the intention and kept the capability to re-start these programs as soon he could do so.

"I never bought into this "free a people" slogan. It's not our place to traipse around the planet bringing US style democracy to other countries."

Had Saddam realized that after 911, that he needed to comply with his cease fire agreement, I think Bush [as would I] would have been happy to let that thug continue to rule his little hellhole. Without 911, it's possible that Saddam might have gotten away with not complying with his cease fire agreement- and gotten the sanctions lifted.

I don't see the US "traipse around the planet", rather I see the US focusing at least fairly close to the Heart of Darkness and attempting to change the dynamics of a region which was responsible for causing 911. I don't buy the idea that terrorism "grows", but it's more a matter of something festering. And I also think the "flypaper" theory has some merit. I rather have the "mother of all" battles against terrorist in Iraq- the land that lacks access for the terrorist of the mountains.
So I way I see it, the terrorists were stupid enough to take the bait, and they predictably got the asses kicked. Meanwhile we should be able to get Iraq to a place in which less US forces are needed. And the longer and less easily seen success will hopeful take place in Afghanistan.

"Assisting people in their own fight for freedom and against tyranny is a different. It appears that handing people freedom is a gift that might never be opened."

Well, I would say the real heavy lifting in the region lies in Iran and Pakistan. And I think our role should to stablize Iraq and Afghanistan enough and give it enough time that at least Iran wouldn't need to be directly militarily confronted. Considering that all Iran needs to do is handle it's nuclear weapons issue [relatively simple matter] and this will allow a better relations. Pakistan though currently our formal ally, is the greater concern and generally more worrisome.

"2003 most likely had something to do with Iran's nuke program but we're just prolonging the inevitable. What do we do when they are getting close?"

Regarding Iran and nukes. As I said above Pakistan is more problematic- and it's already got nukes. The problem with Iran is it's violation of treaty. In comparison Pakistan hasn't violated any treaty because it wasn't member to this treaty.
What is troubling about Iran was it's military involvement in Iraqi fighting against the US. This maybe close to being resolved.
The other problematic aspect is it's involvement in Syria and Lebanon and it's involvement in warfare with Israel- I don't think that is very far along in terms of resolving it.

In basic terms Iran is at war with the US, if we can end this war, then thereafter it shouldn't be much of problem. I would guess that Iran doesn't have much interest in making peace with US at the moment, but after the end of Bush's term, they might choose to use this change in US leadership to begin new direction with US- but it's simply a chance. I wouldn't count on it.