My reaction a few days ago to the report that WMDs did not exist in Iraq was "So what, Iraq is hugely better off with Saddam Hussein out of power".
Within the UK the only way the government could obtain agreement in Parliament for our participation in the war to liberate Iraq was if there had been WMDs and that they represented a real danger. Personally I never really believed that Iraq still had a great capability in this area. My attitude has always been that this allowed the vital object to be achieved - the removal from power of a vicious, bullying thug who had held Iraqis in subjection for far too long already and who, if given half a chance, would try and do as much damage to the region and the wider world as he could, for reasons of self-aggrandisement.
If a few people along the way, such as Blair or Bush, have to suffer the political fall-out of there being no WMDs, then so be it; it's a small price to pay in the wider scheme of things. I realise that my completely cynical and opportunistic attitude on this matter is probably one that will rub some people up the wrong way, but I try to be honest in this blog and that is exactly how I feel.
There is an excellent post today by Alaa in The Mesopotamian which says it like it is from an Iraqi point of view; the point of view of someone who cares deeply for his country, not one of the scum (some of whom may even be Iraqis) currently indulging in tactics to disrupt the democratic future of Iraq by terror tactics. They must not be allowed to succeed.