So you're saying that any time a preemptive attack 'makes sense' - even in the face of strong, credible, and unbiased evidence to the contrary - a country has the right to launch such an attack? What are your criteria for this? You don't like the leader: attack? The country has something you want: attack? You are kind of cranky and want to lash out at someone: attack?
Anyway, I'll just repeat that to anyone who actually considered the available evidence in a balanced and unbiased manner, the attack on Iraq did not make sense. So that argument is moot anyway.