No, he decided his piece of the puzzle was more significant than it was, only, when no WMDs were found, months after the invasion. My hindsight is as good as Joe Wilson's, so is George Bush's.
What critics too often fail to recognize is the context in which decisions were made in the aftermath of 9/11. If you were an intelligence analyst, stung by criticism for intelligence failures, would you choose to err on overestimating risks or underestimating risks? As for congressmen and congresswomen, and administration officials, the spectre of a terrorist attack against U.S. targets, using transferred Iraqi technology loomed large. Suppose Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, et al, voted against the Iraq War Resolution, and such an attack subsequently was made. Their political careers would be over. Today, one might second guess their decision, but you have to base their decision on the environment in which they were made. Note that Clinton and Edwards took a long time before, backing off their decisions. One year after his vote, Edwards was still insisting that Bush had not lied or misled him. He was taking responsibility for his vote, as did Hillary. Today, the political environment is such, that such an idealistic stance is no longer viable.
