No, I am inferring that you implied that WMDs were the only legitmate reason for going to war. Why else even have this discussion? You essentially say that here:
Make no mistake. He's was a brutal and sinister ruler. Removal would have been proper. But invasion may have not been proper or necessary.
Clearly, without the WMD's, Saddam's threat is mild.
That is a silly assertion. In order to make it you have to be willing to say that not only did Hussein destroy all of the WMDs he did posess, but that he would not attempt to restart production at a later date.
The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
Other than Saddam's direct ability to inflict a strike (as was claimed here) what other reason did we have to invade? There are several other countries that have developed further than any Iraqi threat and others who pose an equal threat. So why Saddam?
As I said, he was a tyrincal and brutal ruler. BUT there are other rulers just as horrible or worse than Saddam. So why Saddam. He posed a potential threat to Isreal. So do other rulers and countries in the area. So why Saddam?
To emphasize the urgency of cleaning up the Saddam problem, we said he had offensive weapons at the ready. Not just weapons he could lob across the border and inflict damage, but inflict large area damage and even destruction. Where is that ability?
And removal doesn't always mean invasion. We didn't invade the Soviet Union, yet they had a regime change when communism collasped. There have been many other countries that regimes have changed through our covert activities.