Honestly, Teribus, your inability to read nuance and your dogged literalism is exasperating. I have no idea whether or not you've ever expressed an opinion about the Gulf og Tonkin, but that's beside the point.
As for the rest of your diatribe, it's still bollocks. The PNAC was banging on about iraq long before 9/11, and can you tell me where any senior administration figure proactively approached the mainstream media and said anything to the effect of "Could everyone calm down. There is no connection at all between Saddam and 9/11, and to continue making those implications is simply wrong".
But I am glad tht you agree that 9/11 had nothing to do with the invasion or Iraq.
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz each contributed to a PNAC report in September 2000 report which argued an invasion of Iraq as a means for the U.S. to "play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security..."
Paul O'Neill, Bush's former treasury secretary, has said that "contingency planning" for an attack on Iraq was launched soon after Bush's inauguration and that the very first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion.
But when Bush did hold a press briefing once the decision to attack had been made, guess what? Bush invoked 9/11 and Al Qaeda at least a dozen times to justify a preemptive attack. At no point did he say that Saddam had no link with 9/11. Take a peek.
And we won't even begin to go into Dearlove, Gimble, the Kerr Group or many others - all of whom have rather more than your powers of Googling to come up with their conclusions.
So, Teribus. Absolute bollocks again. You're making a bit of a habit of this, aren't you?