Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the dossier.
Thread Starter
Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the dossier.
So Lord Hutton has decided that Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the dossier. They believed that Saddam had WMD ready for use within 45 minutes. Let's not get into the issue of an establishment ex-lawyer appointing another one to get him off the hook.
Instead, was I alone in hearing Air Marshal Sir John Walker (former Chief of Defence Intelligence and former Chairman of the JIC) pointing out on the Today programme that such fielded weapons should have been detectable via various intelligence sources, with lots of collateral sources, and that the fact that it came from a single source made it highly suspect. He pointed out the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction - or even for chemical mortar rounds ("which unless technology has changed a lot would have a job reaching Cyprus..."). He criticised the way in which the dossier's language was changed for political effect (pointing out that 'may be' is very different to 'is') and expressed clear concern about the unparallelled way in which JIC reports were used to 'sell' the war to the public.
So if Blair and Hoon did believe the Dossier, and specifically the 45 minute claim, should we not be censuring them for their poor judgement and stupidity?
And while Gilligan's claim that the Government knew the evidence it was holding up was untrue may have been inaccurate, his contention that the dossier was changed for political affect, and that it's contents were suspect have turned out to be entirely accurate. I can't help feeling that the wrong people have been forced to resign.
Instead, was I alone in hearing Air Marshal Sir John Walker (former Chief of Defence Intelligence and former Chairman of the JIC) pointing out on the Today programme that such fielded weapons should have been detectable via various intelligence sources, with lots of collateral sources, and that the fact that it came from a single source made it highly suspect. He pointed out the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction - or even for chemical mortar rounds ("which unless technology has changed a lot would have a job reaching Cyprus..."). He criticised the way in which the dossier's language was changed for political effect (pointing out that 'may be' is very different to 'is') and expressed clear concern about the unparallelled way in which JIC reports were used to 'sell' the war to the public.
So if Blair and Hoon did believe the Dossier, and specifically the 45 minute claim, should we not be censuring them for their poor judgement and stupidity?
And while Gilligan's claim that the Government knew the evidence it was holding up was untrue may have been inaccurate, his contention that the dossier was changed for political affect, and that it's contents were suspect have turned out to be entirely accurate. I can't help feeling that the wrong people have been forced to resign.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Shrewsbury, UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I have a less than complete understanding of the facts, however, I cant help but agree completely with Jackonicko!
I believe that no matter how cleverly Tony B. Liar has spun each and every question on his competance, there have been far too many questions, and as such we should be graced with a less ineffectual leader.
I believe that no matter how cleverly Tony B. Liar has spun each and every question on his competance, there have been far too many questions, and as such we should be graced with a less ineffectual leader.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something puzzles me, Saddam still had airworthy Mig 23's did he not?, he had used airdropped chemical weapons on his enemies in the past had he not ?,how long does it take to rack a couple of chemical munitions to a Flogger?, 45 minutes it does not seem a unreasonable assumption to me.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
I whole heartedly agree with you and I suspect the rest of the nation does as well.
Hutton's findings are curious in that he did not consider his remit to cover the issue of the existance of WMD. That being the case, if he did not concern himself with WMD then he could only have paid lip service to the 45 minute deployment claim. Also how is it that the government has come out of this whiter than white inspite of the fact that they plagerised a PhD thesis from an American student (and not very well) to bolster the PM's eagerness to take the country to war (probably to save face having given Bush assurances that GB would follow USA into war).
Now, and as a result of Hutton's one sided findings, the BBC's editors now reside in Westminster, a bigger blow to democracy you could not get.
WMD cannot be found it's possible that it never existed. The Americans have reluctantly concluded this. I believe that the government did manipulate the text in order to win the commons vote, in that regard Gilligan was right.
I hope this is not over yet and that Martin Bell gets Dyke's old job and then maybe the supercillious smug grin can be wiped off the faces of Blair, Hoon and Campbell.
Hutton report
US admits Iraq intelligence wrong
I whole heartedly agree with you and I suspect the rest of the nation does as well.
Hutton's findings are curious in that he did not consider his remit to cover the issue of the existance of WMD. That being the case, if he did not concern himself with WMD then he could only have paid lip service to the 45 minute deployment claim. Also how is it that the government has come out of this whiter than white inspite of the fact that they plagerised a PhD thesis from an American student (and not very well) to bolster the PM's eagerness to take the country to war (probably to save face having given Bush assurances that GB would follow USA into war).
Now, and as a result of Hutton's one sided findings, the BBC's editors now reside in Westminster, a bigger blow to democracy you could not get.
WMD cannot be found it's possible that it never existed. The Americans have reluctantly concluded this. I believe that the government did manipulate the text in order to win the commons vote, in that regard Gilligan was right.
I hope this is not over yet and that Martin Bell gets Dyke's old job and then maybe the supercillious smug grin can be wiped off the faces of Blair, Hoon and Campbell.
Hutton report
US admits Iraq intelligence wrong
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the rest of the nation does as well.
Hutton's findings are curious in that he did not consider his remit to cover the issue of the existance of WMD
Also how is it that the government has come out of this whiter than white inspite of the fact that they plagerised a PhD thesis from an American student
I believe that the government did manipulate the text in order to win the commons vote, in that regard Gilligan was right.
. Shame some people can't accept the truth.
At the end of the day the BBC, rightly or wrongly, backed their man, while the MOD threw their's to the wolves. I know who I would rather work for.
Now, what was the theme of that new RAF TV advert again? Oh yes, an organisation that cares for its members! JOKE!!!!
GrantT. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think a lot of people will disagree with you. It is the totally one sided nature of Huttons findings that most people find surprising/suspect etc. Yes the BBC made many errors, but the government have come out whiter than white. Lord Hutton has made his 'judgement' based on the evidence. But most of that evidence was given in open court and reported for all to hear, and make their own 'judgement'. Things such as Geoff Hoon saying he had nothing to do with the policy of releasing Kellys name, despite Alistair Campbells diary showing he was at the meeting where the descision was made, seem to have been ignored by Hutton. As were further disparities between ministers and civil servants testimony. 10 Downing street and Geoff Hoon made deliberate attempts to blacken Kellys name before the enquiry results came out, and paint him as the villian. It appears to me that most of the politicians involved were more interested in saving their own reputations/jobs than anything else. I can't imagine that thousands of MOD workers would come out onto the streets with 'WE LOVE YOU GEOFF' posters if Hoon had been 'forced' to resign!!
Nuff said!!
Edited for poor spelling.
Now, what was the theme of that new RAF TV advert again? Oh yes, an organisation that cares for its members! JOKE!!!!
GrantT. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think a lot of people will disagree with you. It is the totally one sided nature of Huttons findings that most people find surprising/suspect etc. Yes the BBC made many errors, but the government have come out whiter than white. Lord Hutton has made his 'judgement' based on the evidence. But most of that evidence was given in open court and reported for all to hear, and make their own 'judgement'. Things such as Geoff Hoon saying he had nothing to do with the policy of releasing Kellys name, despite Alistair Campbells diary showing he was at the meeting where the descision was made, seem to have been ignored by Hutton. As were further disparities between ministers and civil servants testimony. 10 Downing street and Geoff Hoon made deliberate attempts to blacken Kellys name before the enquiry results came out, and paint him as the villian. It appears to me that most of the politicians involved were more interested in saving their own reputations/jobs than anything else. I can't imagine that thousands of MOD workers would come out onto the streets with 'WE LOVE YOU GEOFF' posters if Hoon had been 'forced' to resign!!
Nuff said!!
Edited for poor spelling.
Last edited by Biggus; 30th Jan 2004 at 18:46.
In those circumstances, I suspect the posters would say something on the lines of:
'DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR @R5E ON THE WAY OUT, GEOFF'
I've not read all of the report yet, but Lord Hutton does appear to have made some very generous interpretations of the evidence presented before him (particularly the 'naming policy' incidents).
It's barely worth noting that in the past, the criticism levelled against the MoD would have been enough to guarantee that the minister offered his resignation.
'DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR @R5E ON THE WAY OUT, GEOFF'
I've not read all of the report yet, but Lord Hutton does appear to have made some very generous interpretations of the evidence presented before him (particularly the 'naming policy' incidents).
It's barely worth noting that in the past, the criticism levelled against the MoD would have been enough to guarantee that the minister offered his resignation.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grant T
As they say in the duplicity business QED mate
Have a nice weekend
FEBA
What is curious about a Judge doing the job he was told to do and that was to investigate who was responsible for the death of Dr. David Kelly.
Have a nice weekend
FEBA
So - it was quite all right for Government to state that Iraq had wmds on 45 minutes' readiness without any proof because they believed their source was reliable, but utterly wrong for the BBC to broadcast a report that they couldn't prove but was based on a source they believed to be reliable?
And is it only me who thought we were innocent until proven guilty? Hutton stated that he could not rule on what Kelly actually said to Gilligan - but he was satisfied he didn't confirm the story. That sounds awfully like a presumption of guilt to me.
And is it only me who thought we were innocent until proven guilty? Hutton stated that he could not rule on what Kelly actually said to Gilligan - but he was satisfied he didn't confirm the story. That sounds awfully like a presumption of guilt to me.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Security correspondent:
In Washington this week there was a damning testimony on western intelligence by the man who has been leading the hunt for Iraq's weapons.
No WMDs have been found in Iraq
Former senior US weapons inspector David Kay told the US Senate Armed Services Committee the original intelligence that Saddam had banned stockpiles was inaccurate.
"It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgement, and that is most disturbing," he said.
Mr Kay's admission is certainly a great embarrassment to both the US and British Governments.
This is, after all, the man who has spent the last few months leading the coalition's search for those banned weapons and is almost uniquely positioned to know the true status of the hunt.
Britain's intelligence service, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), still maintain that most of the information that went into the Iraq dossier of Sept 2002 was correct at the time, including the claim that Saddam had actual WMD.
It should be noted that this was a view shared by many countries at the time, including some of those that opposed the war such as France and Germany, a fact that was pointed out this week by David Kay himself.
But "we probably all got it wrong," he said.
Baffled
The failure to find Saddam's alleged stocks of banned weapons has baffled every major intelligence agency. They nearly all thought he had them, including MI6.
Professor Anthony Glees is the director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies says that British intelligence were clearly not getting things right.
"What British intelligence was telling the government was clearly not properly accurate? WMD, for example, have not been found. And if intelligence is to be used to formulate policy in the future then policy-makers have to be entirely confident that the intelligence is totally accurate," he said.
The official view at the Secret Intelligence Service is that most of the intelligence that went into the Iraq dossier will eventually be proved correct.
But that includes the assessment that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction just before the war.
Since those weapons have still not been found there is likely to be growing pressure for an investigation into whether the intelligence service gave the government accurate information.
Difficult task
Under Saddam's dictatorship intelligence gathering was extremely difficult, as shown by the poverty of real intelligence that came out while he was in power.
In a totalitarian regime intelligence agencies need human spies on the ground and defectors, but they also need to be scrupulous in assessing the accuarcy of whats being told to them.
The decision to go to war is under scrutiny from all sides
If the intelligence agencies were to undergo some sort of internal evaluation of their work from Iraq, they will want it to be kept as far out of the public eye as possible.
The natural candidate for carrying out such a review in the UK would be the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) headed by Anne Taylor MP.
The work of the intelligence agencies may have had more public attention than normal with the debate raging about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the reason for going to war in the first place.
The intelligence agenices are there to serve the government of the day, and they have almost no contact with the public.
If the government and the overseeing body, in Britain's case, the ISC are satisfied they are doing a good job that is likely to be more important to them than maintaining any kind of public image.
In Washington this week there was a damning testimony on western intelligence by the man who has been leading the hunt for Iraq's weapons.
No WMDs have been found in Iraq
Former senior US weapons inspector David Kay told the US Senate Armed Services Committee the original intelligence that Saddam had banned stockpiles was inaccurate.
"It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgement, and that is most disturbing," he said.
Mr Kay's admission is certainly a great embarrassment to both the US and British Governments.
This is, after all, the man who has spent the last few months leading the coalition's search for those banned weapons and is almost uniquely positioned to know the true status of the hunt.
Britain's intelligence service, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), still maintain that most of the information that went into the Iraq dossier of Sept 2002 was correct at the time, including the claim that Saddam had actual WMD.
It should be noted that this was a view shared by many countries at the time, including some of those that opposed the war such as France and Germany, a fact that was pointed out this week by David Kay himself.
But "we probably all got it wrong," he said.
Baffled
The failure to find Saddam's alleged stocks of banned weapons has baffled every major intelligence agency. They nearly all thought he had them, including MI6.
Professor Anthony Glees is the director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies says that British intelligence were clearly not getting things right.
"What British intelligence was telling the government was clearly not properly accurate? WMD, for example, have not been found. And if intelligence is to be used to formulate policy in the future then policy-makers have to be entirely confident that the intelligence is totally accurate," he said.
The official view at the Secret Intelligence Service is that most of the intelligence that went into the Iraq dossier will eventually be proved correct.
But that includes the assessment that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction just before the war.
Since those weapons have still not been found there is likely to be growing pressure for an investigation into whether the intelligence service gave the government accurate information.
Difficult task
Under Saddam's dictatorship intelligence gathering was extremely difficult, as shown by the poverty of real intelligence that came out while he was in power.
In a totalitarian regime intelligence agencies need human spies on the ground and defectors, but they also need to be scrupulous in assessing the accuarcy of whats being told to them.
The decision to go to war is under scrutiny from all sides
If the intelligence agencies were to undergo some sort of internal evaluation of their work from Iraq, they will want it to be kept as far out of the public eye as possible.
The natural candidate for carrying out such a review in the UK would be the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) headed by Anne Taylor MP.
The work of the intelligence agencies may have had more public attention than normal with the debate raging about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the reason for going to war in the first place.
The intelligence agenices are there to serve the government of the day, and they have almost no contact with the public.
If the government and the overseeing body, in Britain's case, the ISC are satisfied they are doing a good job that is likely to be more important to them than maintaining any kind of public image.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NW England
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bunny and the snake,
Once upon a time in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned
Bunny rabbit and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was
Slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake
and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt
you.
I've been blind since birth, so I can't see where I'm going. In fact,
Since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."
"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the
same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother.
Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what
You are, so at least you'll have that going for you."
"Oh, that would be wonderful,” replied the bunny. So the snake
slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur, you have really long ears, your nose twitches, and you have a soft cottony tail.
I’d say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
"Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement.
The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me."
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're
Smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone, and no balls.
I'd say you must be Alistair Campbell".
Once upon a time in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned
Bunny rabbit and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was
Slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake
and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt
you.
I've been blind since birth, so I can't see where I'm going. In fact,
Since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."
"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the
same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother.
Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what
You are, so at least you'll have that going for you."
"Oh, that would be wonderful,” replied the bunny. So the snake
slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur, you have really long ears, your nose twitches, and you have a soft cottony tail.
I’d say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
"Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement.
The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me."
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're
Smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone, and no balls.
I'd say you must be Alistair Campbell".
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko has hit the truth of the matter and John Walker's opinions expressed yesterday on Radio 4 are very relevant. To lay emphasis on an uncorroborated 45 minute capability that could easily have been verified was at least naive.
John Walker's other telling point for the future related to the need for better and more accurate intelligence assessments in the future - with our new defence policy it might not be a bad idea to get the facts right next time.
We should also consider how narrow Hutton's terms of reference were, how they were determined and how he was selected to be the man to do the job. There is no credit here either.
This slippery prime minister and his henchmen should now be subject to a full enquiry regarding the most important issue: did they lead us into war prematurely, with lack of care and with misleading evidence in support of their case.
John Walker's other telling point for the future related to the need for better and more accurate intelligence assessments in the future - with our new defence policy it might not be a bad idea to get the facts right next time.
We should also consider how narrow Hutton's terms of reference were, how they were determined and how he was selected to be the man to do the job. There is no credit here either.
This slippery prime minister and his henchmen should now be subject to a full enquiry regarding the most important issue: did they lead us into war prematurely, with lack of care and with misleading evidence in support of their case.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's great that the BBC reports on the shortcomings of the BBC - and I expect some of you out there can't see there's a conflict of interests there. The media close ranks and call Hutton a 'Whitewash', and refuse to see the conflict of interests. As my boss used to say 'turkeys don’t vote for Christmas'.
Face it, if Hutton had found against the government he'd still be a 'High grade well thought-of individual', but because the answer wasn't what the cynics and sceptics wanted/hoped for he's just another crony
Perhaps those of us that had access to the info that was kicking around before GW2 should be asked to comment on the Int we were working off (not the specifics) rather that listening to the journos gob off about something they know ******-all about. How can some hack who has never seen the inside of an Int cell consider himself/herself better suited, armed with hindsight, to judge the Int world? Perhaps IntOs should be asked to investigate journalism standards in the UK press?
I'd be happy to write a few words about defeatism and political agendas in the BBC 1982-2004. The bastar*s were noticeably upset that we didn't take more casualties than we did and were forever looking for the negative angle to any story - even to the point of plain making things up - Gilligan was just the most blatant example, and when challenged the BBC just showed it's arrogance in refusing to believe its reporters could possibly be wrong
Tony, for all his failings, had to go in the Int available like the rest of us.
And for anyone hoping to use Hutton to beat the government, if you're unhappy with the results of GW2 has only to start a petition to put Saddam back in power
-Nick
Face it, if Hutton had found against the government he'd still be a 'High grade well thought-of individual', but because the answer wasn't what the cynics and sceptics wanted/hoped for he's just another crony
Perhaps those of us that had access to the info that was kicking around before GW2 should be asked to comment on the Int we were working off (not the specifics) rather that listening to the journos gob off about something they know ******-all about. How can some hack who has never seen the inside of an Int cell consider himself/herself better suited, armed with hindsight, to judge the Int world? Perhaps IntOs should be asked to investigate journalism standards in the UK press?
I'd be happy to write a few words about defeatism and political agendas in the BBC 1982-2004. The bastar*s were noticeably upset that we didn't take more casualties than we did and were forever looking for the negative angle to any story - even to the point of plain making things up - Gilligan was just the most blatant example, and when challenged the BBC just showed it's arrogance in refusing to believe its reporters could possibly be wrong
Tony, for all his failings, had to go in the Int available like the rest of us.
And for anyone hoping to use Hutton to beat the government, if you're unhappy with the results of GW2 has only to start a petition to put Saddam back in power
-Nick
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maple 1
So would you consider John Walker to be better suited than you?
How can some hack who has never seen the inside of an Int cell consider himself/herself better suited, armed with hindsight, to judge the Int world?
Maple 01
I don't know what specific int was available, nor do I wish too. However, just from reading Tom Clancy novels I could guess at least two possible sources, Human Int and satellite photos.
With regard to Human Int, it is probably quite easy for a defector to work out what sort of information his 'bebriefers' are looking for, and provide them with it, even without going into specifics, just talk about lots of heavily guarded convoys moving at night which he was ordered not to discuss, etc, etc. The more a defector tells his debriefers what they want to hear the more valuable he is to them and the better treatment he receives.
As for satellite photos. Satellite pass times are easily predictable. It should be quiet easy to set up a 'show for the cameras'. Just get a convoy of lorries to drive into a base at satellite pass time, with a heavy escort and decontamination vehicles present. The lorries could be full of sand, but the guy examining the photos will think differently!
The point is, western intelligence agencies have all looked at the data assuming Saddam had something to hide. What if he didn't, but was, for reasons of his own, trying to make the world still think he actually had WMD? It would be fairly easy I think to provide some evidence for people who were eager to find it.
Why would Saddam want people to think he had WMD when he didn't? Well for that you have to get inside his head, and to do that you need to drop your western preconceptions. To look big in the region perhaps, to keep his own people in check, to make Iran think twice before any actions it might undertake? Who knows, but it might well turn out to be the case.
The point is, if we are going to war on the basis of intelligence it has to be 100% certain, and I don't think this was (although I don't work in Intelligence).
As to the arguement, "would you rather Saddam was still in power?", no I wouldn't, but that isn't the point. Tony Blair sold us on going to war on the basis of the existence and possible use of WMD. If as a nation we are instead going to rid the world of all evil tryants then I had better start packing my bags for a trip to Zimbabwe!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know what specific int was available, nor do I wish too. However, just from reading Tom Clancy novels I could guess at least two possible sources, Human Int and satellite photos.
With regard to Human Int, it is probably quite easy for a defector to work out what sort of information his 'bebriefers' are looking for, and provide them with it, even without going into specifics, just talk about lots of heavily guarded convoys moving at night which he was ordered not to discuss, etc, etc. The more a defector tells his debriefers what they want to hear the more valuable he is to them and the better treatment he receives.
As for satellite photos. Satellite pass times are easily predictable. It should be quiet easy to set up a 'show for the cameras'. Just get a convoy of lorries to drive into a base at satellite pass time, with a heavy escort and decontamination vehicles present. The lorries could be full of sand, but the guy examining the photos will think differently!
The point is, western intelligence agencies have all looked at the data assuming Saddam had something to hide. What if he didn't, but was, for reasons of his own, trying to make the world still think he actually had WMD? It would be fairly easy I think to provide some evidence for people who were eager to find it.
Why would Saddam want people to think he had WMD when he didn't? Well for that you have to get inside his head, and to do that you need to drop your western preconceptions. To look big in the region perhaps, to keep his own people in check, to make Iran think twice before any actions it might undertake? Who knows, but it might well turn out to be the case.
The point is, if we are going to war on the basis of intelligence it has to be 100% certain, and I don't think this was (although I don't work in Intelligence).
As to the arguement, "would you rather Saddam was still in power?", no I wouldn't, but that isn't the point. Tony Blair sold us on going to war on the basis of the existence and possible use of WMD. If as a nation we are instead going to rid the world of all evil tryants then I had better start packing my bags for a trip to Zimbabwe!!!!!!!!!!