It's all so clear

So, let me get the gist of this straight:

After a complete search, we've discovered that Iraq had no WMDs. They had no stockpiles. They had no capacity to manufacture them. They had no plan in place to resume building WMDs should sanctions be lifted. And any informal plans they may have had were "primarily for defense against Iran." So, given that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US (something most everyone except the US and UK agreed on), and that our "reason" for attacking Iraq was "pre-emptive self defense", and our gov't consistently defends Israel's actions with the "they have a right to protect themselves" argument, why is it that Bush is still claiming we were justified in invading Iraq? Apparently (according to the Bush Administration), we have the right to kick the crap out of anyone we want in the name of "self defense" even when they don't pose a threat at all, and our allies have the right to commit human rights violations and massacres in order to "defend themselves", but anyone else who wants to build weapons like ours in order to defend themselves is a "threat to the world" and needs to be obliterated. Not to mention the various times Bush outright lied (where are the cries for impeachment from the moral right-wingers?) when he claimed WMDs had been found, or that evidence of WMD production capability was found, when in fact according to our own investigators, no such evidence exists. And people wonder why the Administration is so loathed . . .