"The solid rationale for this war was liberating Iraq from Hussein's brutal regime, rather than the shakier WMD evidence. How bizarre that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to play a weak hand and that they now keep doubling their bets as its weakness becomes more apparent."

.

According to the UN, every country is sovereign and it is forbidden to interfere in internal matters of sovereign states.
The WMD pretext is a way to prove Iraq could be a threat to its neighbouring countries, and because the threat precisely means interefering with internal matters of neighbouring countries, the UN allows the use of the WMD's argument as a reason to prevent such a threat by attacking that country (if the threat was substantiated and more than just potential).
Here, not only was Iraq no threat to its neighbours (since 1991, it hadn't attacked any other country) but it apparently didn't even have the weapons to be a "potential" threat.

Regime change? That's 1,000% blatant interference with internal matters of another sovereign state. What kind of other regime? It goes against patiently and painstakingly built international laws. There are many other dictators throughout the world and one is even admitting to start a nuclear weapons program and use it as a deterrence.

I hope the UK investigation (the role of Campbell, Blair, Dr Kelly and the BBC journalist) will come up with something the effects of which will ripple across the pond right into the White House Administration.
The BBC might have journalists replaced, but the BBC will stay (they even have a recording to prove their case). And the parliament as well as the public opinion will not take lightly any attempt to shift the BBC into a voice of the government role.

Raoul