Piss-poor reasons

The day after Rumsfeld practically admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz is now trying to downplay their importance by saying that they were emphasized for "bureaucratic reasons". The same BBC article also cites him introducing another "reason":

The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.

"Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East," Mr Wolfowitz is quoted as saying.

I don't know about you, but I think that "needing somewhere to move your troops to" is a pretty piss-poor justification for invading another country, trashing its infrastructure and killing over 5000 civillians (not to mention an unknown number of actual soldiers). Couldn't they have simply been moved back to the US instead?