Amid all the verbiage here, can anyone actually point me to an official or at least reputable source where it states that there were WMDs in Iraq, as stated in the title of this thread?

I was under the impression that the reasons for invading Iraq were:
1) That Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was prepared to use them, and
2) That Iraq was linked to the 11 September attacks.
Regime change, the fostering of democracy or the salvation of the suffering people of Iraq were not mentioned.

As far as I can see, reason one is now dead in the water, and even Bush has implied that the decision was based on faulty intelligence.
Reason two never was a starter - why on earth would a secular Ba'athist regime which had already repressed Islamicist thought in Iraq turn to fundamentalist Islamicists? As far as I can see there is absolutely no evidence of any significant link between Saddam's government and Al Quaida, and would appreciate the help of the hawks here in finding it.

And surely, if there was any substance at all in either of the reasons given, don't you think we would have heard it trumpeted from the rooftops by now. Erudite and articulate as the posters here undoubtedly are, I rather doubt that the Bush administration has passed to them the baton of truth and enlightenment.
As for the failure of the UN inspectors to find WMDs; yes, I'm sure the Ba'ath regime was unhelpful and obstructive. But can anyone find me a link that shows that Hans Blix or any other part of the UN therefore agreed that the subsequent aggression was justified?
So come on chaps, admit that the world isn't flat and that the reasons for the war, as given, were not supported by the facts. And that, surely, is what matters.