An Incompetent Man of Integrity?

Hutton enabled Blair to claim, on legal technicality, that it is plausible he didn't know the claims of Iraq's WMD were exaggerated in the dossier he presented as the pretext for taking Britain to war. I don't believe that for a second, but let's suppose that Blair's claim is true. If it is it then questions over Blair's competence as a leader have to be raised.

Going to war is serious business. It is bound to result in the deaths of some of your own soldiers. At the same time those very same soldiers will undoubtedly be responsible, perhaps inadvertently, for the deaths of innocent civilians. Murder is a crime, and leaders who engage in war are guilty of it, so they had damn well be sure that conducting war is the last resort open to them. From my point of view, war can be justified to stop genocide, and to defend against or possibly retaliate against a direct attack. Starting a war for oil, starting a war to stop oppression, starting a war because your buddy across the ocean is going to start it anyway, these aren't sufficient reasons in and of themselves to start a war. At the very least you first have to exhaust all other means of coming to a peaceful resolution to a situation.

If Blair didn't engage in exaggerating the claims of Iraq's WMD in his dossier, then he's at least guilty of incompetence. There were clearly many in the intelligence services in the UK who felt Blair's dossier overstated the case on Iraq's WMD. The Hutton inquiry revealed that all too well. That Blair did not bother to consult voices raising concerns clearly demonstrates either extreme incompetence, or a mind already made up to go to war inspite of any evidence. Personally I find it hard to believe Blair is that incompetent, but if he makes the argument that he didn't know the intelligence he received was faulty, at the very least he should resign. It appears Michael Howard the UK Tory leader feels the same.