Why? At worst, he's still got two-thirds of all MPs behind him, and (this being a democracy) that means it's about as legitimate as it gets..........
Leave cries of "but it's not legitimate" to the woolly thinking brigade, along with "but it's only the Americans who say he's got WMD"..... you have to laugh at the how that argument started to look a bit shaky with the whole "Nope, no WMDs in Iraq. None. It's all lies. Ohhhh, wait a minute, we've just found a couple of hundred, wonder where they came from, those pesky kids"
At the end of the day, there's a nutter with WMD, who has consistently worked on serious (i.e strategic) delivery systems. You don't design and build IRBMs unless you want to do some serious threatening. Has everyone forgotten the whole "Supergun" thing?
Tony Jeapes wrote a letter to the Times, and pointed out that if PIRA could hide tons of Semtex in countries where tens of thousands of police and army spent thirty years searching for it, how in h*ll will "more inspectors and more time" find anything in Iraq if Saddam's mob aren't cooperating?
So, do we try and force him to disarm now, or do we wait until he's got a credible strategic deterrent? (Hey, the US and USSR were building ICBMs in the 1960s, so I don't think that it's beyond reason that Iraq could develop one)