Maggie's Farm

Actually we didn't find any chemical WsMD. We found hundreds of old, useless shells with degraded and inert chemical remnants; they cannot even be classified as 'weapons'. Hundreds of 'throwing objects' would be more fitting.

- they aren't new
They're not. By all accounts they're at least as old as the first Gulf War, and in some cases predate it.

- they didn't find any nukes
No, we haven't, despite the Bush Administration's insistence that we would.

- that's old news (it is?)
Old is subjective. If you consider three years ago old, then yes it is.

- the timing of the declassification is suspicious
Santorum was down 18 points, he needed a desperation ploy.

- that still wasn't a reason to invade
The Defense Department itself agrees with that statement, and says as much in your linked article. ""This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the [DoD] official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

- Saddam wasn't such a bad guy
Specious strawman argument which has nothing to do with this article.

- it doesn't count, because it doesn't fit the narrative
If by narrative you mean Colin Powel's assertions to the UN Security Council that Iraq posed an imminent and immediate threat, then these throwing objects (weapons) do not.

- Bush never really made WMDs his main excuse anyway
I believe that's your Republican talking point, not a counter to this article. It's hard to tell what motivated the Bush Admin when their casus belli changes every other week.

- it's really all about...whatever.
I think you left out cronyism, military industrial complex, salvaging the petro dollar, and Bush's sociopathic psyche.

The blame here is not on the US, but those that deliberately deceive the public with false propaganda. That includes this administration. It is with them the fault lies, not the country as a whole.