Another opinion...
I have yet to find anyone who argues with the following propositions:
1. Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction at one time
2. He did not hesitate to use them on foreign troops and civilians (Iran)
3. He did not hesitate to use them on internal enemies (Kurds)
4. He retained the ability to make WMD at reasonably short notice
5. He regarded the inspections as a game and the inspectors as enemies rather than the inspections as a means to prove he had disarmed and the inspectors as allies in making that proof manifest to the world.
Given all that, what difference does the existence of WMD make? And while we are at it, are people really accusing Colin Powell of deliberately lying to the UN in his presentations?