I think to a large extent the discussion is missing the point.
Even if Saddam has WMD or is acquiring them that does not necessarily mean that a war is a good thing because the costs of a war might be bigger than the benefits. Specifically the costs I identified in the OP about the risks of a war helping the spread of WMD to terrorists. The bottom line is that a Saddam with WMD is less scary than an Osama with WMD.
There are other ways of checking Saddam other than a rush to war including cover operations and deterrence. Cover operations are especialy relevant if we are talking about about a 5-10 year horizon over which period they could easily bear fruit in terms of bringing about a more cooperative regime.
As I said I don’t rule out a the threat of war in order to get the inspectors back. In the last resort , of course, that means there is always a small possibiliity of war if Saddam doesn’t back down.
However the neo-con hawks want war as pretty much a weapon of first resort. They simply haven’t thought through the consequence of a huge destabilizing war both on the narrow issue of the war on terrorism and the wider issue of the stability of the region.
Aside from alarmism about Saddam’s WMD where is the neo-con analysis of war which carefully considers the costs and benefits of war? AFAIK it doesn’t exist. These people are dilletantes and rabble-rousers who in most case have little understanding of the region or even the military. Their main driving force is emotion and ideology and when the stakes are this high it would be unwise for American policy to swayed by them.