Bush isn't stretching this out in order to play politics. He's stretching it out because Saddam has us by the balls right now. Bush could pick up a phone and Saddam would be dead in 24 hours. He could have done that any time in the last year, he could it today, or tomorrow or at any time in the future. There is no "window of opportunity" for removing Saddam -- Saddam's removal is militarily a trivial exercise for the United States. What isn't trivial is ensuring that Saddam doesn't kill millions of Americans with anthrax during the end game. The rate-determining step in the campaign on Iraq is US civil defense against anthrax attack. By comparison, every other consideration fades into insignificance. That is why Bush is stringing this out, in terms of acting militarily against Saddam, in terms of pointing the finger at Saddam for 9-11, and in terms of identifying the origin of the anthrax letters which followed 9-11.
So what sort of time frame are we looking at for this thing? My guess is that Bush has set himself the goal of removing Saddam from power before his first term in office is out. Three years is probably sufficient to put the appropriate civil defense measures in place, it's not so long as to risk too many new unknowns entering into the equation, and, in an historical sense, it's the mere blink of an eye. Bush has repeatedly reminded us, with respect to the objective of regime change in Iraq, that he is a very patient man. Barring a stroke of luck (good or bad) this will not play out to its conclusion in a matter of weeks or months. We will have Saddam Hussein to kick around for quite some time to come.
While not completely convinced, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't know of any "mainstream" media analysts that take this position, except Andrew Sullivan and possibly Stan Kurtz at NRO. But I think this is what's likely going on.
Assuming this is true, why the elevated Iraq talk now? If Bush is genuinely open to not moving against Saddam for another year, the current Administration campaign to increase the attention on him doesn't seem to make sense. How can, for example, Bush make another SOU Address without there having been any visible move against the "Axis of Evil"?
I think, for whatever reason, Bush has decided to move against Iraq very soon, and is going to try to ride out the possible terrorist counterattack. Perhaps because the intelligence is clear that Saddam is not going to allow us to root out his deterrent that is already in position in America, or that he might even be able to augment it. And what civil defense measures can prevent - rather than just mitigate - a massive bioterror attack anyway? We know we're not going to see sealed borders or mass deportations. We won't find the caches, or at least all of them - and it seems reasonable that if this plan has been building for 10 years there's more than enough in place as a contingency.
I think we're looking at an attack on Iraq, and poised internal security ready to pounce on terrorist perpetrators in the act. This would mitigate, hopefully, the worst damage from the attack. But it sure won't prevent massive civilian deaths.
Bastards.