Blair "believes" so that's ok then

I've just been watching the Iraq enquiry on the BBC web site and listening to our ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair giving evidence about the various components and decisions of the lead up to the invasion of Iraq and subsequent fall out etc. Something that comes up over and over again is the phrase "I believed", for example "I sincerely believed the threat of WMD was real", even other ministers are getting in on the "belief" game, I heard one of the ex-cabinet on the radio the other day defending the ex-PM saying (in effect) the war was warranted because Blair "sincerely believed" there was a threat.

Surely this whole thing is about evidence, not belief? The question on the table is was the war justified and legal based on the evidence available, not what any particular person "believed", sincerely or not. I see this tactic used by religious people a lot (obviously the trick is not lost on Blair), i.e. they wish to blur the distinction between evidence and belief, to elevate the role of "belief" up to the same status as evidence. Some of them even go as far as to say that belief actually is a form of evidence, a sub-set of it or an alternative to it. To the scientific brain this is preposterous, and any rational person can see that "here be dragons", if you can justify actions based on "belief" then you can justify anything. It seems like there are almost two kinds of brains out there and perhaps why some people simply cannot "believe".