Well, if this doesn't rate as "Sun is hot, water is wet" news, what does? From the link:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." (italics added)
I've always said that Bush and co. fell prey to groupthink - where all of them believed in something so strongly that all facts against were minimized and all facts for were maximized. (I must admit, though, that there was so much double-talking that almost had to be intentional - Saddam being involved in 9/11 hints, say - that I would not be surprised if it came out the WMD intelligence was massaged from the start.) They wanted the war, so the intelligence was fixed around it.