Well, in the sense that our Commander-in-Chief seems to have made the determination that this was a necessity, yes.
. If they had no WMD's,
Who says they had no WMD?
what would have been the logic?
Oh, hypothetically, you mean. Well I believe it's well-known that our leadership has an approach to the war on terror (remember this "terror" stuff?) which partially involves removing a dictatorial regime in the Middle East and trying to help a more or less free society grow there.
Did we have to go because we disliked Saddaam?
Not "have to".."want to" maybe
Did we have to go because we wanted to kill some of the Iraqi people?
No, it's obvious that we wanted to kill as few Iraqi people as possible. Fewer than Saddam does, for example.
Did we have to go because Iraq was a danger to our country?
Our C-in-C seems to have thought so.
What is the reason?
ask the C-in-C, he explained it many times. If you don't like his decisions/strategy for the war on terror, you can vote against him next time, of course. be my guest
I just cannot understand the logic of defending a war based on mistruths.
what "mistruths" were those again?