Legal case for Britain's 2003 Iraq invasion "unsatisfactory": UK inquiry

Britain's decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003 had a "far from satisfactory" legal basis and ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair's case for military action was over-hyped, a long-awaited inquiry into the conflict concluded on Wednesday.

The intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction which Blair used to justify joining the US-led invasion, which led to the removal of Saddam Hussein and the deaths of 179 British soldiers, was flawed but went unchallenged, inquiry chairman John Chilcot said.

There was no imminent threat from Saddam in March 2003 and the chaos in Iraq and the region which followed should also have been foreseen, he added.

"The inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal," Chilcot told reporters and relatives of some of the soldiers killed in Iraq. "We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory."

Blair's statement to parliament in 2002 about the risk posed by Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and an intelligence dossier to the public that accompanied it were presented with a "certainty that was not justified", he said.

Cameron says UK lawmakers must take share of blame over Iraq

Lawmakers who voted to support Britain's joining the 2003 invasion of Iraq need to take their share of responsibility for the mistakes that were made, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Wednesday.

Cameron, speaking after the publication of a long-awaited report on the events that led up to the conflict, said the country must ensure its armed forces are well equipped for any future conflict.

"The decision to go to war came to a vote in this House and members on all sides who voted for military action will have to take our fair share of the responsibility," he told parliament.

"We cannot turn the clock back but we can ensure that lessons are learned and acted on.

"It is crucial to good decision-making that a Prime Minister establishes a climate in which it's safe for officials and other experts to challenge existing policy and question the views of ministers and the Prime Minister without fear or favour."