No one's saying they're "a WMD". What they're saying is that they could be used to produce a WMD. Which is just as bad, from our point of view. You understand that, right?
It's not like we would've been perfectly safe if Iraq "had no WMD" but could produce them in a matter of days...sheesh
How can mustard gas or cyanide in the Tigris and Euphrates be considered an WMD?
It's evidence that they had them. Which was the issue.
No, the issue was whether he still had them and whether they were a threat to us. Everybody aknowledges he had lots in the past and probably still had some.