Max, is there anything in here you find convincing? . . .
No, I don't believe anything from official or quasi-official sources. My point was that analyses of blame are floated now to support preconceived policies.
I referenced an apparent debate within the Administration between 'wide' and 'narrow' strategies. The 'narrow' view is elaborated this a.m. on the Post op-ed page by Robert Oakley, a top spook formerly active in Somalia, among other places. He focuses on keeping as low a profile as possible and cobbling together enough Afghani opposition forces to topple the Taliban.
Another interpretation of amply leaked debate is that it reflects a good-cop/bad-cop routine. It's a way of saying to uncooperative states, we can be sensible or we can go wild. Do what Colin says, or we turn Rummy loose. This dovetails well with Bush's speech, which left no options off the table but limited its initial targets to OBL and the Taliban.
Another still is that the narrow strategy is merely transitional to a broader set of attacks. For an advocate of a broader campaign, it makes sense to try something relatively tractable first and see how it goes before graduating to attacks on Saddam and others.
mbs