Yes, he had vastly different views in the past.
Syria, Iran, N. Korea and some others posed a far greater threat than Iraq. However, from a STRATEGIC angle, If Afghanistan and Iraq were "converted", it would isolate Iran and make it easier to eventually see them leave their wacko/terrorist ways. In this sense, I think the arguement "why Iraq" is not looked at by Bush critics from a strategic angle but by a nation by nation tactical angle.
My criticism of Bush centers around the financial, the tactics used, and Bush's ignoring of the invasion from Mexico.
It was wrong to spend $300 billion dollars and to be politically correct. We were attacked on 911. It would have cost next to nothing to use a few well-placed tactical nukes and then go in and target strictly leadership. This fighting the foot-soldiers and "insurgents" is nuts, as well as rebuilding Iraq and spending $300 billion dollars. We should have let Europe "rebuild Iraq" after we leveled the damn place. No matter if we spend $300 billion or $3 trillion, the people in that region will still hate us, even if we bankrupt ourselved doing it.
Bush's financial managment and decision making has been atrocious. Continuing this Mr. Nice Guy Politically correct way to wage war is killing America. We should be using the $300 billion to improve our national security and procure new advanced weapons and to beef up our Special Ops forces, not wasting it on the Arabs who will always hate us regardless.
Maybe some of these things bug Paul Craig Roberts also.
Maybe some of those things bug him too.
But you would think he would know better than to try and turn the non-smoking-gun memo into a smoking gun and call for an impeachment.