on the absence of WMDs

As you have heard, there were no WMDs. No stockpiles. No weapons programs. No weapons program related activities. Sure, Saddam would have liked to make his sworn enemy, Iran, think that he was not totally defenseless. And sure, he would have liked to get some weapons, if sanctions were ever to be lifted. But he didn't have any weapons.

so, my question is: how can someone comply with UN resolutions to "disarm" when they are not armed? There are already some questions about the legality of our invasion, but I imagine that this confirmation that Saddam had, in fact, disarmed in 1991 makes the invasion patently illegal.

In the lead-up to the war, newspapers reported Bush saying things like this:
President Bush labeled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein a "murderous tyrant" who may be planning to attack the United States with biological and chemical weapons. Speaking to more than 800 at Cincinnati's Museum Center at Union Terminal, the President said Iraq's leader "is a threat to peace and must disarm."

And in the debate last Thursday, Bush said: "Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. "
(debate transcript)

maybe we can get the UN to pass a resolution that Bush should stop denying that Iraq was a mistake.