As I pointed out earlier, and you ignored, the only justification necessary is that Hussein violated the cease fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War. Once Iraq was in breach of the agreement, we were at a state of de facto war. This was just finishing what Saddam started.
Also, I'd appreciate an answer to my initial question. I asked:
Because prior to 9-11, there were very few people on the planet, outside of Scott Ritter, who didn't believe and state for the record that Iraq was in posession of WMDs.
Prior to 9/11 the public was not paying much attention to Iraq. It was when the US government used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to demonize Iraq that all the public talk started. My own memory of the time between 9/11 and the start of the war was a belief in the possibility of Chem or bio weapons but no possibility of nuclear. I also was confidant that there was no risk of Saddam turning those weapons over to anyone. As it turns out, he had nothing to turn over and was probably bluffing to keep his neighbors from invading him.
Our government, which should have had much better information than we had, should not have been fooled by his bluff. They certainly should not have been raising the specter of nuclear weapons. That was pure BS. Yet there was plenty of talk about uranium purchases, aluminum tubes, and a reconstituted nuclear program. I recall that it was the Niger uranium story that was the deal closer in congress in October 02, 8 months after the report from Ambassador Wilson that the story was false.
Now did you also ask when it became legitimate to ask IF Saddam had weapons? Such a question can never be illigitimate. We must always question our government. They are too powerful to trust blindly.