Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:

> U.S.-led inspections later found that Iraq had ceased active WMD production and stockpiling.

> Perhaps because the article you linked says things like:

The article says an awful lot more, such as pointing out the fact that Saddam's regime not only ran WMD development programmes for decades but also had a long and verified track record of using them in military engagements and even against civilians.

The article also points out the fact that once Saddam's regime was defeated in it's botched attempt at invading and annexing Kuwait, it rejected and outright antagonized the UN's programme that foresaw terminating Saddam's WMD programmes.

Trying to spin the issue as a simplistic "they had no WMDs" is ignorant to the point of being nearly disingenuous. You need to ignore everything and the whole history to make such a simplistic and superficial observation.

The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".

> The problem with this argument is that the case for war with Iraq was repeatedly made as "Iraq has WMDs that they are willing and ready to use".

It's not s problem at all. It's actually the whole point.

Following Saddam's botched invasion of Kuwait, the regime was ordered to destroy it's WMD stockpile. The UN was mandated to foresee Saddam's WMD programmes were destroyed. Saddam spent the following years outright preventing the UN to do any form of verification, and went to the extent of outright antagonizing them.

So you reach a point where a totalitarian regime with a long and proven track record of developing and using WMDs refuses to show it got rid of it's WMDs. How can you tell if they still have it if they actively prevent the UN from checking?

You instead receive intel that suggests Saddam is indeed not only stockpiling WMDs but also actively developing them.

Do you think it's unreasonable to enforce the decision?

It's tempting to look back and take the simplistic and ignorant path of saying "there were no WMDs". This however denies all facts and state of affairs. In fact, the whole WMD talk is a red herring.

"Yes, we did lie. But in hindsight, our lie did not affect anyone's decision making. The truthful part by itself was enough to convince everyone who was convinced."