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.
bttt
"The problem of WMDs was Saddam giving them to terrorists in small quantities."
Very true, and that was the classic argument. The liberals counter that there were no weapons at all for Saddam to give, which appears to be true but may not be.
The Iraq/al-Quaida link was very real. Even though bin Laden and his cronies are religious zealots and Saddam was a secular Ba'athist, they are both Sunnis and that has become the defining line in the war: angry religious Sunnis are trying to spark an ethnic war between regular Sunnis and Shi'ites. This...cannot...happen.
And not only did congress give that authorization, but the U.N. itself signed Resolution 1441, which said that there would be "consequences" if Saddam did not comply. He remained defiant. It was the U.N. itself who wouldn't enforce its own resolution. We and the rest of the coalition were the U.N. members who actually followed through with 1441.