I will be shocked if this is not precisely the case.
If the Atta-Saddam meeting were true, the story would not be first told to an Italian business daily. And it would not be Richard Perle doing the telling.
This is either a.) an accidental misreporting of Perle's remarks, as you suggest or b.) an intentional misreporting, so as to damage the credibility of whatever evidence the administration may subsequently produce on an al-Qaeda-Iraq tie.
If the Atta-Saddam meeting were true, the story would not be first told to an Italian business daily. And it would not be Richard Perle doing the telling.
Actually I would bet he did say this, and that the report is accurate. It shouldn't be that surprising that Perle is coming out with this now - he is actually higher up and more influential than I thought. He is infuential precisely because he is NOT part of the administration. As head of the civilian defence policy board and not subject to congressional oversight, he can get away with expressing opinons and viewpoints that those inside the administration, perhaps, could not.
And he has said this to a European paper precisely because it is the Europeans who must be convinced to ally themselves with the US in attacking Iraq, no matter how tepid their support really is.
I think he is still expressing exactly the sentiments that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz hold. But when Perle makes a statement that may not be backed up by the facts (Atta met with Saddam), then it is easier for the administration to keep their distance if the press starts to demand proof. In the meantime he has moved the debate further toward the view of the Iraq hawks.
I do not think this has anything to do with laying a trap for democrats or any claptrap like that. Bush and others want to unseat Hussein. If they can enlist democrats to do that, fine. Most important right now is getting the international community to back the attack.