Iraqi WMD's is a more complex issue than it should be, considering it is now kind of moot.
I believe the issue of WMD's is at the very best an intelligence failure, and at the very worst they were hidden in Iran/Syria. I don't believe Bush lied about them, because that makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he lie and then lead us to war if he knew there weren't really any over there? He would know he would be caught on that.
I do think that while WMD's MAY have been a legitimate selling point, the ideas of creating democracy in the Middle East and liberating the Iraqis were far better reasons, and should have had more importance in the reasons for war. Although, I also believe that the MSM overhyped the WMD's after they realized that there may not have been any there to begin with. They realized how bad that would make Bush look, but I remember Saddam possessing WMD's being A reason for war, not THE reason.
I agree that WMDs were "a" reason for the war and not "the" reason.
Actually, according to the congressional authorization of Sep 18, 2001, the President could go after anyone who aided, abetted, participated, etc. the 9/11 terrorists or any of their associates.
Salmon Pak was Zarqawi's al qaeda retreat in Iraq for developing ricin, a poison, for mass delivery. There's plenty of proof that an Iraq/terrorist/al qaeda connnection did exist.
The problem of WMDs was Saddam giving them to terrorists in small quantities.