A Just War . . . Well, on Second Thought

Two years ago Michael Novak offered this defense of the Iraq war, and it largely turns on the assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that he desired to use those weapons against the United States.  There's certainly a debate as to whether the presence of WMD would satisfy just war requirements, but I'd like to clarify a different point.  Can we all agree that, if the intelligence accurately revealed (what turned out to be) the absence of WMD, then the just war requirements would not have been satisfied?  In other words, without a good-faith belief that WMD were present, the invasion of Iraq was immoral, right?  On what other basis could the conflict in Iraq possibly be considered a just war?

Rob