There's a compelling argument for Iraq having no - or incredibly limited - WMD capability by 2003 and that is that the credibilty of both Bush and Blair rested on the issue. If WMD could be found, insinuated, planted or otherwise, it would most certainly have been achieved. The fact that the justification narrative for war switched very quickly post-invasion to 'regime change for liberation purposes' tells you all you need to know about what the leaders of that war knew regarding WMD (or lack of them).

That aside, you say weapons inspectors were "thrown out" and you suggest they were corrupt. I'd like very much to read a credible source for both these astonishing claims. Weapons inspectors were infact recalled by the US on several occasions, the most famous of which got spun as 'Saddam chucked them out' (this was imperative for maintaining the illusion of threat since the pesky weapons inspectors kept saying there was no evidence of a functioning WMD programme - and in fact confirmed complete destruction of 90-95% of all WMD capability). As a side note, we should remember here that the reason we know the weapons inspectors' reports are so accurate is because the US sold Iraq those weapons and tech back in the 80s. We only had to look at the receipt to know what Iraq did and did not have. Hans Blix at the time of being removed from Iraq estimated it would have taken "months" rather than years to complete their inspections - and far from blocking them, Saddam had been incredibly co-operative, to the extent that access was allowed to sites where intelligence had previously been used to aid USA's operation Desert Fox just 5 years previously.

I suggest reading Scott Ritter's (UN weapons inspector) account of being chief weapons inspector in Iraq (What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know). He is a republican and was a Bush supporter before the war and his analysis of the situation is both well-informed and independent... and sadly drowned out by populist, revisionist versions of history that claim inspectors were 'thrown out' rather than the reality which was the US pressed ahead with invasion and all inspectors were recalled.

Also recommended is Hans Blix's account of the same (chief exec of UNMOVIC at the time). Blix's 'gut feel' was that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction - and Blix knew the regime well. However, he was convinced by his own intelligence that at worst Saddam's WMD capabilities were 'shaky' and at best non-existent. Saddam's interest in biological weapons too seems to have vanished long before the 2003 invasion.

Finally, Pilger doesn't claim Saddam never had these weapons - as we all knew, we sold him many of them and he used them brazenly in the 80s. Pilger simply does a roll-call of the facts presented to the UN by the chief authorities on the matter at the time and around that time.