WMD's and the Reason for War

I thought this week I would post on a topic we are currently discussing in class and the connection it has with the war in Iraq. The justification to invade Iraq was primarily based on the assumption that Saddam Hussein was actively engaged/engaging in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction. After declaring war on any and all terrorist organizations and threats, President Bush urged the United Nations to search Iraq for any operations involving WMD's. US troops were already in Afghanistan at this point and Americans were still emotional about 9/11. These emotions might have made them more willing to support a war on anything that posed a threat, including Iraq. Whether an Iraq war was inevitable regardless of the outcome of their search is up for debate. Most seem to believe that we were heading for war either way. The justification to move forward proved to be this belief and information that there were indeed destructive weapons in Iraq and that those weapons posed serious threat to America.
The relationship between the United Stated and Iraq has historically been rocky at best. The dictatorship rule of Saddam had always been criticized by American presidents. In the 1980's it was known that Iraq used chemical and biological weapons against Iran and that same warfare killed many Iraqi civilians. I think this not only showed the world the weapons available for Iraq to use, but also indicated the level of comfort with which they showed in using them. Genocide and mass murder were analogies used when describing Iraq, and probably for good reason. Iraq has been a signed state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty almost since the origination. Because of this, they agreed to allow UN inspectors to search for any wrong doing.
War was engaged after President Bush declared that the UN inspectors had indeed found WMD's. This proclamation has been the debate of many people and depending upon your source, can have many different theories and outcomes.
A lot of people believe Bush lied when he said WMD's were found. Some believe he was telling the truth. Some believe Iraq had them and moved them to Syria before UN inspectors could find them. I tend to wonder if the WMD's made a difference in the grand scheme of things. It seems like finding them would have provided that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that American safety was being jeopardized. It would then be justifiable by most standards to move forward. What about the additional threats Iraq posed against the US? Were we to continue to turn our heads away from the horrible things going on in that state? Our human rights ideals were being threatened there and it seemed we were destined to battle either way. Which leads me to wonder out loud...did finding or not finding WMD's really matter?