Yes, they ran a leading editorial titled "Why war would be justified", arguing that confronting Saddam Hussein was "the least bad of the limited range of available options".

However, they reversed position in 2007, calling the invasion a debacle.

It would've been more surprising if they hadn't reversed their position, well after it became painfully clear to everyone that the war had been a terrible idea.

The idea of overthrowing a vicious dictator can't really be wrong in any moral sense.

In terms of realpolitik or execution it can be.