Bliar knew full well that he couldn't sell 'regime change' so used WMD and a bogus interpretation of the facts to justify a 'threat' to the UK. If he didn't have the testicular fortitude to state openly that his objective was regime change, the U.S. weren't so particular about it:
". . . the [U.S.] Administration maintains that regime change has been declared U.S. policy since November 1998 and remains the desired goal."
Access my Library Dec 2002
Anyone that thought we'd just go in and remove any WMD we happened to find and leave the regime intact must have been in a different war to me.
Dannett was right - it was all about regime change, we just chose to believe that
we were doing it for a different reason.
btw A war of aggression is not a war crime, in nuspeak it is called pre-emptive self defence (and that
was the phrase used in the U.S. to justify the war).