MPs have debated the findings of the Hutton Report following the weekly prime minister's question time on Wednesday.
The report, which was issued last week, investigated the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly.
It concluded that the government had not inserted material in the dossier against the wishes of the intelligence services.
On Tuesday the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, set up an independent inquiry to examine the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - used as part of the justification for the war in Iraq.
What did you think of the debate?
This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
So, let the voters decide. All other parties withdraw their candidates in the Sedgefield constituency at the general Election and allow Martin Bell a clear run against Tony Blair. The simple question to be answered will be "do you believe him?"
Stephen Devlins, London, England
The Establishment appoints the Establishment to acquit the Establishment. Surprised at the result? Not me!
Peter, London, UK
Tony Blair is a refreshingly honest politician. It is only because of the decision to make this information publicly available that we can make these accusations in the first place. Let's not forget - he did not have to do that.
Richard, Newcastle, England
Why is our country obsessed with these weapons? Can't they think about the fact that they have just removed an evil man from power, rather than concentrating on the hole that they have dug for themselves. At least the USA insisted that the operation was a regime change to begin with.
Sachin Patel, North Harrow, England
These enquires are never going to answers the core question of why we engaged in a pre-emptive war. The public will only learn the truth in thirty years when the US open the files. That is assuming the "war on terror" doesn't remove the freedom of information act, along with other civil liberties, in the mean time
Mick, Leeds, West Yorkshire
The report published by Lord Hutton was to one sided. If the report was more criticising of the government, the backlash would not have been so dramatic. If it was a white wash, cover up or the parameters set for the enquiry where set for this purpose, I don't know. But i do know this mistakes where made by both the BBC and the government for the government to come out like a freshly washed linen sheet is wrong. The government may find out that the people are more willing to forgive the BBC than them.
Scott, LInwood, Scotland
Ho Hum, another waste of time and public money. So the intelligence was wrong and the British Army has assisted the Americans in removing a brutal despotic ruler. Which is the worst crime? Getting the intelligence wrong or removing the thug? Tony Blair (whom I do not wholeheartedly support) is, I believe, a basically honourable man. I find it very hard to understand why he should drag Britain into a war if he didn't believe that there was good reason. The logic just doesn't work that way, and this has been well demonstrated over the past few weeks. The decision has been very costly for him. It is history now and we should all move on and stop whinging about Hutton's whitewash, the government's corruption etc
Nick Baker, Paris, France
I think Hutton got it dead on - you don't accuse the prime minister of going to war on the basis of a lie unless you are sure of the facts. Blair didn't lie, but he did spin - so what's new?
We should get out of the habit of accusing our politicians of lying all the time - in reality it's very difficult for them to get away with that and they know it. We should instead hold them to account for making poor judgements, which I think is the real issue relating to Blair and Iraq.
Of course, Hutton's conclusions fail to match the evidence presented but don't condemn all Inquiries. Remember Lord Scarman's fearless report into the Brixton Riots, and then Macpherson's challenging report into the Lawrence case. I suppose it all depends on the Judge. I don't hold out much hope for the Butler enquiry though. Too close to the Government machinery in my opinion.
David Wood, Macclesfield, England
I think a lot of the anti-war protestors suffer from a lack of empathy. They simply can't understand how other people can hold differing opinions, and so seek conspiracy theory explanations for any decision they don't like. The Prime Minister would not have taken us to war if he thought that the majority of people in the UK were opposed to it. Just because one million people wandered through central London waving Socialist Worker banners does not mean that the entire country shares their opinion.
Peter, Nottingham UK
If the method of delivery of WMD launchable within 45 minutes by Iraq only covered "battlefield weapons", does this not mean that the dossier was effectively 'sexed up' by omission? Certainly the government said nothing to refute the claims that British targets in Cyprus could be hit by these weapons - which made the front page of The Sun. Surely to allow this is to mislead the public?
It is absolutely outrageous that protesters purposely disrupted the United Kingdom Parliament. All very well people can voice their opinions but surely there is a time and a place. The protestors were complaining that the Hutton Report was a 'whitewash' in essence a mockery, but surely behaving like clowns in the House of Commons is the real mockery. Who do these people think they are? A law lord has judged and exonerated the government in every way and criticised the BBC - that must now be accepted. In how many other legal cases is there a continuing running commentary - after the final verdict.
Surely the most important thing to do now is concentrate on matters that really effect the British people and accept that the world and Iraq is a better place without slaughtering Saddam.
I cannot believe that Blair did not realise the 45 minute claim referred just to battle field mortars. If someone had said to you that Iraq was capable of using WMD within 45 minutes, you might have just asked exactly what that meant - could they target London with a ballistic missile, or hit other parts of the gulf or Cyprus, or how much danger would this put our troops in. To just blindly accept this intelligence without even enquiring just a little bit further does not sound in the least bit plausible.
Now we know that the 45 minute claim only referred to battlefield weapons, doesn't this justify in some way the BBC investigation? Also, this fact condemns the Government as they did nothing to retract the reports that appeared in the press indicating that Britain was 45 minutes from WMD attack.
The Hutton report has effectively protected Blair and Campbell from deserved censure, but it will not protect Blair from being kicked out of office when we have a general election!
Christopher Simmonds, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, England
The prevailing mood at the BBC appears to be whatever Hutton said we know we are in the right and we are going to keep on banging on about it. What arrogance! The BBC has a massive conflict of interest and the self serving biased reporting it is serving up is doing it further damage.
T Price, Keswick,UK
The Hutton inquiry, like this new enquiry, has a remit which ensures we will never find out what actually happened. The role of Ministers, civil servants and the intelligence service must be fully investigated. Although I think that it is clear, even before such an enquiry where the blames ultimately lies. Tony Blair should resign.
If Robin Cook knew that the 45-minute claim referred to battlefield chemical munitions and not weapons capable of striking cities, as he said in his resignation speech, does Tony Blair expect us to believe that he didn't, as he claimed in the Commons yesterday? If he truly didn't know, he should resign on the ground that he took us to war based on intelligence that he hadn't bothered to understand properly.
I marched against going to war and still believe that it was an extreme measure to take when it seemed that the politicians could still do something to avert it all. However, I have been very disenchanted with the power of the media: the pressure put on Dr Kelly was media driven; the public views are entirely manipulated by the various media; and now we have the media deflecting the criticism aimed at them by refocusing our attention on the minutia of word-smithing. There's spin for you.
Tracey Bendrien, London E5
I complained to Lord Hutton in August that the Inquiry's evidence did not include the computer files from which the published dossier was prepared. Those computer files would contain a complete record of who did what and when thus answering the key questions over the 45 minute claim. Lord Hutton appears to have chosen not to examine the computer audit trail and that is one of the reasons the Inquiry remains unsatisfactory and why so many people remain unconvinced about his conclusions.
And now the Prime Minister says hew was not aware of what the "45 minute" reference in a document to prepare the nation for war exactly meant. This is the Prime Minister, the man running our country, the man with his finger on the button saying he was not in full control of the facts! This Government will twist, turn and blame anybody except themselves for anything that goes wrong. Isn't this and indictment on the way this Government and the country is run. Shouldn't we expect that those in charge are fully and completely briefed as to why they send our armed forces into conflict? It appears that "spin" influences the decision to send troops to their possible death. Is this the way to go to war?
Geoff S, Surrey, UK
When is the BBC going to stop clutching at straws? Everybody knows the Saddam had WMD - biological weapons that did not require long range delivery systems. For example. they could have been used against the UK by Iraqi agents to poison our water supplies. Humphries ignored yesterday's statement by Rumsfeld that these WMD could still be found as they could easily be concealed in a small space or stored in Syria.
G.Draper, Walton on Thames, England
During the long and transparent Hutton investigation, everyone praised the skill and thoroughness of Lord Hutton. I am astonished that once the findings of this distinguished Law Lord were made public, many now denounce him. The time to complain was before not after the fact. In my opinion those objecting do so for partisan political or ideological advantage.
A. Fry, Geneva, Switzerland
To A. Fry, Geneva, Switzerland: Is it possible, just possible, that after extensive enquiry of an issue, any issue, the person charged with summing up may get it wrong? Hutton may have been very thorough in the gathering of evidence but on such a subject, should one man be left to decide his conclusions, without appeal?
Pascal Jacquemain, Welwyn Garden City, UK (French)
The reason that so many people are disappointed at the Hutton report is that they didn't understand the original remit although, personally, I think Lord Hutton's interpretation of the remit, and therefore the findings, are a bit skewed.
I am one of those screaming 'whitewash' at the top of my lungs. I have also not only read most of the evidence in the Hutton report but I have it downloaded onto my PC! There is no provision for invading a country on the basis of its human rights record and even if there was, why is Tony Blair not mobilising to remove Mugabe from power? To say the Government did not do anything worth criticising is in my view a whitewash. I don't think Lord Hutton is not a man of honour. I just think he is wrong.
I am totally fed up with the on-going discussion on Hutton and the war, and am now switching off whenever either appears.
If this attack is the best hope for Tony Blair's enemies then I don't think anyone should be at all concerned over his character. Is there not something obscene about this obsession over minor details of who said precisely what, when they said it, and what it meant? We are fortunate enough to live in one of the most advantaged nations in the world, is it not our duty as human beings to help those who are weaker and less fortunate than ourselves, even if it means going to war and the resultant grief and problems caused to those we attempt to help and ourselves?
British Journalism and media has had a severe jolt. Maybe now "time" will be called on irresponsible reporting. Lord Hutton's sound judgement should be welcomed by all fair-minded people.
Cedric P Smith, UK
I'm tired of hearing that 'the world is a safer place because an evil tyrant is gone' argument. Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorism with an uncertain future which will in all likelihood involve civil war. nothing good has come out of this war, a full inquiry with a wider remit is an absolute necessity.
For years the media has enjoyed attacking and vilifying a whole range of people. Now that a section of the mass media is heavily criticised and censored, the editors, journalists and other such semi-anonymous people can't handle the kind of treatment they mete out to others. So they revert to form and attack Hutton and call the report a 'whitewash'.
Art, Brighton UK
It would appear that the world is upside down - with conventions being ignored left right and centre by Mr Blair's government. Surely the role of the press is to scrutinise our politicians, forcing them to account for their decisions or resign, rather than the other way around? The BBC's enshrined right to freedom of speech is being unfairly compromised. On a broader point - ridding the world of a tyrant is ever a fine achievement, but lies and half-truths from on high smacks of hypocrisy.
Jamie Grace, Sheffield, UK
Looking back on the Gilligan affair I must say that it almost defies belief that the BBC should engage this journalist, let him make a very serious attack on the government without any supervision at all, fail to see the seriousness of the action, fail to look at who else might have been involved, let the matter go through every stage to the governors without once checking the material on which the attack was based. On the balance of probabilities there is more to it than that. If there was a whitewash the BBC appears to be a beneficiary.
J Westerman, Leeds UK
Dyke's and the BBC's responses are shameful and self-serving. If you didn't like the prospect of Hutton finding against you should have said so from the beginning. The BBC and Blair's critics would have embraced Hutton with open arms if he had sided with them. Now they have decided to kill the messenger because they cannot abide to hear the message. Allen Mills
Allen Mills, Winnipeg, Canada
I think the anti-war argument has benefited tremendously from information put into the public domain by Lord Hutton. His lack of criticism of the government may be a good thing if it makes people look again at the evidence that he collected so transparently.
Ozorek, Bradford, UK
Nothing will satisfy the people who did not want the war to start, and who cannot forgive Britain and the USA for winning. Even if the intelligence was false, a tyrant has gone, and the world is a safer place.
Richard Bristow, Marlow, UK
Richard Bristow, Marlow, UK: Winning? Have a look at the world, my friend. Have a look at the graves, have a look at the chaos in Iraq, have a look at all the terrorist alerts we now live under, have a look at the fear of travellers on our airplanes, have a look at the lack of confidence people have in our governments and you call this winning?
Mike W., West London, UK
I read most of the evidence submitted to the Hutton enquiry, and I cannot reconcile it the Hutton's judgement that the government did not alter the presentation of the dossier to make the case for going to war with Iraq stronger. I believe that the evidence also showed that the method of outing Dr. Kelly was underhand and devious. I will find it difficult to have faith in any 'independent' enquiry in future.
Catherine Wykes, Derby
How many of the people shouting "whitewash" and "murderers" have actually read the Hutton report? The vocal minority who marched on London in protest last week were busy singing the praises of Lord Hutton until they got an answer they didn't like! What should parliament have done in the light of the intelligence they received? Had they done nothing and Saddam had wiped out 100,000 Kurds or sold his WMD technology to terrorists for them to deliver it over the streets of London, the same people would be marching on Downing Street protesting that we hadn't acted in the face of an obvious threat. Although of course they wouldn't be able to march into London because it would be quarantined! This is a war people, wake up and smell the coffee!
Ian Litchfield, Ilkeston, Derbyshire
Ian Litchfield, Ilkeston, Derbyshire: Your answers - 1. Yes, I have. 2. I didn't hear that - were you there then? 3. Have better judgement and know that without evidence, there aren't any WMD. My 10 year old daughter could, why couldn't Blair? 4. He didn't have any WMD to sell, but we do though (as we did just a couple of months ago to Syria). 5. Wide awake thank you. You know what caffeine does though, perhaps you've had too much?
Tom Franklin, London, UK
One thing we must remember (and so should our PM) is that the Hutton Report was supposed to report into the death of Dr Kelly. The fact that the Hutton Report cleared the government of sexing up the Iraq dossier is merely 'opinion' from Lord Hutton. How can Tony Blair use this as an excuse to 'move forward from the issue' when the issue hasn't been dealt with? I welcome the inquiry, but I don't think the public will get an independent enquiry. The Government have too much to loose.
Neel C Shah, Harrow
I must admit that when the Hutton report was first made public, and then the news media began to criticizing the report for been so one sided. I was also full of criticism for the Hutton report. The report was a complete waste of public time and money because it had had failed to confirm the failures of Governments. Then I did a strange thing, I actually down loaded and read the 'Hutton report' from the Internet. I now understand that Hutton and he's team were only investigating just a very small incident in a very large and complicated situation.
Steve G, Gateshead UK
I assume all the people who moan about no justification for war have never read about, or seen photos of the mass graves, and rape chambers that were found in Iraq? There were many reasons for war, the fact that government unwisely focused mostly on one does not change that.
Andrew Sharp, Glasgow
The Government, even if wrong, is never going to admit to any misjudgement over the war or let an independent inquiry examine their decision making process. They do however appear to leaving a trail of unresolved issues which the opposition can surely exploit at the next election. Patience is all that is required.
BJ, Berkhamsted, Herts
Blair keeps on about the need to defend our democratic way of life. If Britain was a democracy we would have a) referendums and b) a Parliament that represented the will of the people.
Colin Laverick, Farnborough, UK
The primary reason for going to war was the genuine threat of WMD in Iraq and the probability that these would be used. Tony Blair confirmed this and asked that we trust him that the government were in possession of incontrovertible proof. Many of us did trust him and backed him over this. To hear now that he considers the war justified even if there are no WMD is appalling. Because a regime is despotic does not in itself justify a unilateral decision to invade and overthrow it.
Brian Jenkins, Zug, Switzerland
Robin Cook is my MP.
As a (former) cabinet minister, he was (presumably) privy to the "secret" intelligence that Dr. Jones mentions. Yet Cook has publicly and categorically stated that he's seen no evidence to support the claim that Iraq has WMD.
Alan Colquhoun, Livingston, Scotland
Another inquiry will simply state that the Intelligence Services were not at fault. Just like Hutton said of the Gov't. Its a waste of time and money. We need a radical change. A change to a system that is more honest than dishonest. One of total openness, where people can be held accountable for their actions. And we won't get that with Blair or Howard.
Mark Hammond, London, UK
Hutton did what official enquiries always do; he cleared the government of the day and preserved the status quo. The house of Commons could function as it should function if its members spoke on behalf of its constituents and questioned the government on behalf of the country. It is, after all , the supreme legislative and judicial body. A narrow enquiry conducted by representatives of the establishment will only end up clearing the establishment again and we'll still be left with demands for an enquiry that will tell us, the poor electors, who is to blame for the faulty intelligence about the WMD
Warren Cotton, Derby United Kingdom
Why do people continue to whine on about Hutton, just because they don't like the answer? If he had found the government was to blame, the very same people would be praising Hutton to the heavens for his honesty and integrity.
The response to Hutton shows that many of the people who object to the war are not interested in the democratic process of debate.
Before the country went to war, there was a debate on whether we should invade Iraq. The Government won that debate, it could have lost the debate.
Since then Hutton has judged that the information presented by the Government in that debate was a true representation of what they had received from the intelligence services.
There was no cheating, no deception. Anti-war MPs failed to persuade Parliament of their position, because their position lacked substance.
M McDonald, Surbiton, UK
I watched the TV debate and heard the protesters shouting. Nothing spectacular there but the BBC, as I knew they would, have used it in their banner headline as some sort of confirmation of the nation's outrage at the corrupt Government. When will the BBC start reporting the news in a fair and even-handed way?
Martin Frances, Manchester
I would like to congratulate the BBC yet again on it's balanced reporting of these issues. Do those attacking the BBC on this site forget that it is the very organisation they seem to despise that is giving them a platform for their views?
It isn't just a case of shouting 'whitewash' because of the results. I too followed the evidence closely and simply cannot equate the conclusions of the report with the evidence I observed. Was Hutton actually there or was it a cardboard cut out? The 'independent' inquiry into WMD will also be a waste of time, effort and money. It would be nice to think that we could vote out this corrupt government in the next election - but could someone tell me where we can find a party with decent, high moral standards? To all those who feel that it was right to go to war with Iraq due to Saddam's evil behaviour - might I ask what they see as a solution to Israel/Palestine/Burma/Zimbabwe amongst others?
Deb Rees, Melksham, Wiltshire
The BBC is still using loose language, in spite of the Hutton report, by repeatedly using the imprecise term "sexing up", and so compounding its errors. Can you say something like "cleared of adding in material against the wishes of etc" in your summaries please.
Mr G Sykes, Huddersfield
I am a little lost as to what was being investigated here. Was the Hutton report looking into why we went to war in Iraq or the circumstances leading up to the Death of Dr David Kelly. The Government were accused of "sexing up" a document and the Prime Minister of leaking the name of Dr Kelly. Hutton has looked at the evidence and judged that neither of these were the case. I fear the problem is some people have "sexed up" their impression Hutton's investigation into being something it was never meant to be!
D.F. Porter, Barnsley
Everyone is quick to blame Tony Blair for everything that happens, yet no one credits him for all the pressure he has ridden. He has had the country turn on him, his peers, and now by the looks of things Mr Bush. Yet Blair has managed time and time again to overcome all adversities. His politics maybe faulty, but as a man his will and determination to continue is to be admired.
How many more inquiries are needed at the expense of the taxpayer? Nothing will satisfy those who have their doubts about the war. Tony Blair has stood through your fires, and stood when no one else was standing. He has served with dignity and courage. These inquiries involve ploughing through intelligence that in the end will compromise our ability to protect innocent civilians around the world. MI6, CIA, Russian Intell have all been subjected to this scrutiny and all those people have done is worked so you and I don't have to live in a world of terror. To our intelligence community, god bless the thankless work you do day in and day out.
"Amid the interruptions, Mr Blair joked: "I somehow feel I am not being entirely persuasive in certain quarters."
That's because he only reads The Sun and hasn't a clue how the other 58 million people feel.
Judging from the emotive language used by the Anti-Blair brigade they have already pre-judged any inquiry irrespective of the terms of reference or who chairs it. Lest we forget those that are complaining the most have different political agendas, such as the opposition parties and disaffected Labour MPs.
Mike, Ewell, Surrey UK
Given the fact that Blair said his decision to go to war wasn't based entirely on the opinion of those intelligence committees, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say regarding his motives if this inquest throws the intelligence into doubt. What else drove you to war, Tony?
Geoff Butler, Bracknell, UK
Ultimately Tony Blair took the decision to take us to war, and it is therefore the Prime Minister who should be the centre of an inquiry. Anything short of this is treating the symptom rather than the cause.
Paul, Nottingham, UK
What a waste of time, money and effort. If people are so disenchanted with Blair then they can exercise their democratic rights at the next general election by voting him out.
Rob, Thatcham, UK
Good on the protesters - a million took to the streets and they still didn't listen.
Perhaps Mr Blair heard clearly the voices of many in the chamber today.
"We're the politicians" and therefore make the decisions. That was what Tony was getting at. Forget the debate, the only thing which will call to count his arrogance for truth and justice will be the ballot box. Then it will be "We're the electorate.. every four years we make the decision".
Gareth, Swansea, Wales
As someone who sat through some of the Hutton proceedings and read a great deal of the evidence, his conclusions seemed to me completely supported by the evidence. Those who shout 'whitewash' because the result was not the one they were hoping for are simply hypocrites.
Peter Prynn, London, UK
Will the BBC ever let go of this, or will they bore us into despair. Gilligan misrepresented the facts; Sambrook didn't check them, Dyke was distracted by the big picture, and Davies got the Governors to simply sign on the dotted line. Time to move on.
Kerry, London, UK
The tragedy is that Tony Blair thinks that he has won. He probably thinks that his latest spin has done the trick. Poor Tony; he cannot see the damage he has done to himself and to the labour party. He does not know yet what probably every one else knows that he is ending up in the same historical bin like other conservative ex-leaders.
K Mans, Essex, UK
It's funny in this age of political correctness to say the word liar. It is obvious in this war, instigated by the Bush gang and supported by the Blair group that any evidence of wrong-doing by Iraq was entirely inconsequential to the whole affair. I know of only one Prime Minister in recent times who has lied so much, to so many, for so few.
Henry, Cambridge, UK
I have no faith in any report undertaken by the establishment, at the request of the establishment and which will inevitably come down in favour of the establishment. I resent having my taxes wasted on such activities almost as much as I resent them being spent on illegal wars. I will not be voting for the Labour Party in any future election, I would die before voting Conservative, and the Lib Dems are not worth the walk to the polling station.
The Hutton Report is a report that was long, long overdue regarding the incompetence of journalism in this country. I am not a fan of the Prime Minister but he has handled this situation with great dignity. We are such a cynical nation.
I'd like my MP Simon Burns to stand up in the House and demand the resignation of the Prime Minister on the grounds that he no longer has the confidence of the British public, he potentially has a case to answer at the Hague War Crimes Tribunal and is more interested in the welfare of the American political system than our own.
David Howe, Chelmsford
Blair can limit the remit of the Hutton and Butler reports but in the end we will be able to vote him out. I intend to do so.
Bill Carson, Norwich, England
I want my MP Stephen Timms to resign as he did not represent the opinion of thousands of people who came out on the streets to voice their concerns on the invasion of Iraq. Thanks to Mr Timms, most of the voters I have met and spoken with are considering voting for the Lib Dems in the next elections and that includes myself.
This whole thing has gone too far and has the potential to seriously poison the body politic. Hutton reported vindicating the government. There is no way that the WMD inquiry won't also exonerate the Prime Minister. This war was deeply moral - a brutal tyrant was deposed. It is only the arrogance of the British left that is keeping the argument going.
Michael, Belfast, N. Ireland
In reply to Michael of Belfast. The problem with wars based on morality is that any defination of "moral" is a subjective one. Which is why there are things called laws. Admitedly the body of international law is slight but it does say when you can wage war "legally" and when you can't. Gulf War II was illegal, even though it may not have been immoral.
Darius, Rochester, UK
The Hutton report was a thorough and considered assessment. Why do most seem to dismiss it and instead prefer to believe the snippets they heard on the TV, radio or in the tabloids? Silly me, the snippets gave them a stick to beat Blair with, the full facts didn't. I prefer the full and considered facts.
Kevin, Appleby Magna
Kevin: Even if Lord Hutton's report was thorough and considered, it still doesn't represent a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence!
Justin Rowles, Southampton, UK
My MP, Glenda Jackson has been one of the few Labour MPs who has kept her self-respect throughout the Iraq debate. I would urge her to insist that the Hutton whitewash is not followed up with a Butler whitewash.
William Warbrick, London
No matter what we request, the truth will never be ousted. So, why don't we all just forget about this report and be good boys and girls? (Well isn't that what this government want us to do?)
S. Barton, Colchester
What's the point? Like most of my friends I've lost all faith in our political and legal system. Watching Tony Blair last night I get the impression he really doesn't seem to care what the people think.
Mike D, Warrington
What's to debate? The Hutton remit was so narrow and the findings so one-sided as to defy belief!
JK Jackson, Newcastle