No, he means to say some of the information he had was wrong. And his credibility is important to him.
There's nothing new in that, nor is there anything wrong with admitting the WMDs he and the president believed were there, ~weren't~.
That's just the truth.
And, what about him disputing Saddam's regime links with terrorists?
Do YOU personally believe that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war?
EVERY indication before the war (and not just CIA info) was that Saddam DID have the weapons. Saddam could have been out from under UN sanctions years earlier - but no, he discovered that he could obstruct the inspections and have nothing to worry about. He was still making billions of dollars, building his temple-like palaces, and paying tons of money to known terrorists all over the world - including Israel. He has direct and well-reported ties to high-level AlQueda members, has directly supported terrorist training, and I believe the fact is - he (Iraqi Government) had direct connections to at least one of the 9-11 hijackers - including the leader.
Signs of chemical weapons have been found. Mobile labs have been found. Sattelite imagery DID show extremely suspicious activities (truck hauling out lots of stuff) just prior to inspection teams arriving at facilites. Eye witnesses of mass shipments of unidentified stuff out of country to Syria prior to the ground war. What about the components found?
Did Saddam pose a direct threat to the US at the time we attacked? In reality, probably not. Did Saddam pose a threat to the US through his support of terrorists and his aspirations to obtain WMD in large quantity (he had small quantities - well documented).
All that can be admitted is that no LARGE QUANTITIES of WMD have been found.