Those weapons had better be there somewhere

At the United Nations in February, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, presented evidence claiming that there were mobile laboratories and showing clear signs that the Iraqis had moved material to escape inspection from UN teams. Put together, all this was argued as constituting a clear breach of UN resolutions that therefore required urgent action.

These claims cannot be wished away in the light of a successful war. If nothing is eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war - will never believe another thing that I am told by our government, or that of the US ever again. And, more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those weapons had better be there somewhere.

Thus that bloody prediction.

I hope this isn't off-topic, but what the hell is he talking about? WMD not reason I backed Iraq war, says Gordon Brown.

But Mr Brown said weapons were not his prime motivation, and instead it was Iraq's persistent disregard for United Nations' resolutions which "put at risk" global security.
"The evidence that was given to us was that there were weapons and that was the finding of a number of people, but for me the reason for intervention was always the breach of international obligations by the Iraqi government," he said.

There were many allegations and arguments around at the time, and its hard to recall them all now, but actually David A did a fair job, IMO. If there were WMD (or intent to produce same), Iraq was contravening UN resolutions. But if there weren't, what "international obligations" were breached that were serious enough for invasion? If we're not talking about weapons, but, say, torture and general unpleasantness, how did this '"put at risk" global security' where North Korea or Saudi Arabia (as for instances) don't?

I'm not trying to join the Nick Cohen/Martin Bright etc attacks on Gordon Brown. I understand the 'regime change' argument, even though I'm not persuaded by it; and I understand the 'WMD' line. But this? Tell me it isn't nonsense.