In a pre-nuclear world, you'd be right -- but the level of destruction that a single nucelar wepon can bring, waiting until he is 'ready to strike' may very well be too late.
Like we did in December 1998?I accept the fact that Iraq's WMD/weapons capabilities were of great concern mostly because we really didn't know with a high degree of certainty what Saddam was doing, but IMO all we really had to do was launch a surgical strike at a few key targets, i.e., weapons factories - suspect or real, and that would have put an end to it.
You'll note that all the quotes I posted were -after- that....
Part of the problem wasnt just the weapons, but the guy in power.We didn't have to invade Iraq to yield the ultimate goal as aspoused by the commentary of the politicians you quoted, which was to end his WMD capabilities.
As long as the guy was in power, the threat remained.