"There simply is not enough time to adequately cover the subject prior to the election.

I just don't believe that to be the case, more especially as regards the salient issue, which is, how far was the White House in control of the decision to distort the evidence in a way that supported policies that had already been decided on.

The argument that "the leadership of the free world" may have been taken in by the fictions about WMDS is rather weakened when we take into account the inevitable impact of the fact that the USA, with it's enormous resources, was so evidently determined that Saddam had this capacity. "These guys are so certain, it must be true."   

And in the UK it appears pretty clear that the intelligence community was divided between operatives who were sceptical about the whole thing, and an executive that was committed to backing up the policy of the government - which was based on the position that it was imperative for the UK to stay on side with the USA. (For various reasons, probably including a hope that this might mean some kind of restraining influence on a very dangerous regime in Washington.)