Perhaps, perhaps not. Like I said in an earlier post, arming Iraq had a logic which made sense at the time (i.e. Iran) and we do not now know what the world would have been like had we not armed Iraq and (perhaps as a result) Iran won that war. Perhaps the result would have been even worse and we would now be dealing with other threats. But we will never know.
In any event, these connections you refer to are certainly interesting and worth investigating, but I still don't see how they add up to an antiwar argument. If we gave Saddam weapons, then we know he has those weapons (loosely speaking... some were presumably lost/broken/sold/stolen/buried in the desert somewhere). The more weapons we gave Saddam, the more he now has. If there was a vast intricate secret CIA weapons-funneling operation to get a whole bunch of nasty stuff to Saddam back then, well...
....all the more reason to take him out now, now that we no longer need him as a buffer against Iran. Right?
Neo-cons seem to have put the story in the memory hole and will settle for a United Nations war
I don't see how you can get away with calling it a "United Nations war" when as it stands the United Nations is going to have to be dragged into this thing kicking and screaming.
rather than take their case to the American people.
No need. The American people are already on board. The rest (like hijacking the UN in the cause) is just logistics.