They stand as proof positive of Wolfowitzs third criteria, second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people as well as the second, terrorism, for which there is ample additional evicence. I was addressing the other poster as well, who seemed to imply the sole reason for the war was WMDs, which was false.
Personally, I have little doubt he had WMDs, and that well find evidence of their disposal and transfer. In fact youll find reports of transfer to Syria, under control of uncontrollable rogue elements according to the Syrian government, posted on FR last fall.
As to whether atrocities on their own are cause for intervention, IMO in most cases no. I wasnt supportive of Kosovo (or Bosnia), though I think it would have been proper for the EU, its their backyard. If it was a matter of a 5,000 troop deployment, I probably would have supported a deployment in Rwanda. In the case of Iraq, I think Sadaams atrocities, coupled with his support for terror and the threat he posed to middle eastern oil fields (those troops werent in Saudi Arabia to enjoy the scenery) might have been enough even without the WMDs, which Ive no doubt existed.
I view the intelligence issue separately, and think a thorough review is called for. The smoking guns werent there, there may be reasons, possibly destruction, possibly lousy intelligence, which should be addressed.