I realize they are not the same thing, but are you suggesting that putting a hundred viles of anthrax into a backpack and getting it into Iraq would have been impossible, or even difficult if one were as evil as Bush was portrayed?
amount of "evil" a person is =/= ease at which they can smuggle things into other countries
a vile of anthrax =/= a weapon of mass destruction
jobs reports numbers being slightly off =/= spending billions of dollars to put thousands of troops in other countries on a gamble that said countries might have weapons and might be aiming them at us
This is what we're talking about when we say "apples to oranges" after you say things. In any case, with Bush it wasn't an abundance of evidence that Iraq had WMDs that convinced Congress to go along, it was the deliberate withholding of information to the contrary. Basically, the evidence for WMDs was exaggerated and the evidence against it was tucked away. By George Bush? Probably not. By key members of his administration? Absolutely.
Edit: just saw you point out that you aren't equating the two situations, just what you said about them. Feel free to ignore this post.