!. Where was the proof that "fewer in the US public believed this after Bush's pre-war claims were shown to be false"?

2. Where is the proof that "it remains that the US administration tried to suggest a connection between 9/11 and Iraq."

Your argument is opinion and you try to defend it by claiming that facts to the contrary are false. Where are you facts other than to say "somebody sad there is a propaganda campaign" which in itself is a propaganda campaign.

I have not heard anybody anywhere on TV radio or in print say they were convinced by Bush that Saddam was involved with 9/11 or that he would be involved in future terrorist attacks.

All of the blame for bad information about WMD's is being placed on Bush in an attempt by others to exonerate themselves of any fault on their part.

If you prefer say so evidence by "finer minds"over facts, explain this:

On Jan. 29, 2001 the Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons."