Bush and Blair's original reasons for taking out Iraq were quite sound; essentially that post 9/11 they could not leave a dangerous man like Saddam defying the UN. What happened next was that the "left" demanded a "proper" explanation and B&B APPEASED them by providing one.
Appeasing a ne'er do well merely provides fodder for his evil rationale as was the case here. The left merely focussed on the WMD part and that worked out well for them, especially as they control the news.
(Yes of course B&B were hoping to democratise Iraq but they did not say so at first; they knew they would be shot down by their western enemies.)
George W Bush is a despicable worm of a man who, IMHO, is capable of anything. Not only did he orchestrate 9/11 but he also planned the attack on Pearl harbour, the downing of the Hindenberg, the sinking of the Titanic and the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs. Oh, and he's going to hell for not overturning Roe vs. Wade and allowing illgal mexicans to overrun America.
Here's a snippet from the dialogue during Christmas dinner at George Senior's house after Saddam's hanging:
George W: I got him good for you daddy.
George Sr. You sure did son. Pass the potatoes.
"Mark Steyn and others had made the point that the problem with world peace vis-a-vis the Middle East was precisely the stability the ME enjoyed under murderous regimes (with histories of the use of WMDs.)"
I wonder why you don't criticize the constant use of WMDS by the USA and the UK.