I believe WMDs were a legitimate selling point.
The issue was not our being attacked by Iraq. The issue always was the Iraq/terrorist connection and getting transportable quantities (small) of WMDs in the hands of those terrorists for attacks on Americans, American allies, and American interests.
Oh geez. Don't try and sell the "WMD" lies like the MSM. Read the Iraqi resolutions in the Congress and the UN and you'll find a laundry list of items listed for regime change in Iraq which was, thanks to Clinton, official U.S. policy.
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.
A guy I know (he's pretty much non- political joe-six pack type) were talking about Iraq.
I asked him "Do you know why we invaded Iraq?"
"Sure, I looked at a map."