I suppose one could observe that it perhaps contains more truth than any of the previous justifications, such as, say, the link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda (what link? None has ever been shown) or WMD (What WMD? None have ever been found, unless you count a handful of artillery shells left over from 1991) or the threat that Saddam Was Going To Have The Bomb Real Soon Now (all the inspectors who went onsite, before and after the invasion, agreed -- some reluctantly -- that all credible evidence showed Iraq's nuclear program had been terminated in 1991 and never resumed). I still want to know what was wrong with the explanation of "We need to remove Saddam Hussein because he's a bloody-handed tyrant who treats his people with complete barbarity and makes war on nations we depend upon for vital strategic resources." (Oil, that is. Black gold. Texas Tea.)
But I suppose then people might have asked awkward questions about why we helped put Hussein in power.
(Footnote: "[...] the White House announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the federal response effort." Uh, White House spin folks, I've got news for you -- in case you hadn't noticed, AUGUST IS OVER. Today is the last day of the month. Bush was going to HAVE to end his "August vacation" today anyway, unless he was planning to further extend it into a September vacation. It already started out as a July vacation, as it is....)
no subject