It is relevant whether a person opposed the war before it started, at least if that opposition was based in large part on skepticism over the Bush Regime's insistence that Iraq's alleged weapons programs represented a clear and present danger justifying preemptive war. That skepticism, in turn, at least in my case, was based on questioning the wisdom of the preemptive war policy, whose Achilles Heel is the accuracy of intelligence (or the honesty of politicians presenting that intelligence) to reliably recognize when a threat exists that justifies starting a war. IMHO there's too much room for either error or abuse in such a policy, and post-war events are validating that judgment. If the preemption policy is as bad an idea as I think it is, then yes, there's some satisfaction in seeing it discredited as early as possible, before it leads us to a real disaster.

It's also relevant that the newly-discovered barrel o'papers n' parts dates from the first Gulf War. The issue is the Bush Regime's statements that Iraq has (had) an active nuclear program that was within months to a couple of years, at most, of producing a viable weapon. The barrel does not support that assertion.