Liberal PM Howard's intentions were honorable

that the consequences for invading Iraq should be such as to bring the most happiness to the greatest number. His intention was to find the WMD's and get out of there. His intention was not to do regime change - see his speech to Parliament about Feb/Mar 2003 - or was it his speech to the National press Club of about the same time.
So where does utilitarianism of the founders of liberalism as a moral philosophy stand when the intentions do not accord with the results?
These people are in a boat in the middle of the ocean and the only way the greatest number will survive is to eat one of them. Greatest happiness for the greatest number? Or is there another moral imperative - do what you do such that you would will that action to be done to oneself. When you elect to eat someone to save yourself you cease to act as a moral being. The greatest happiness in the boat in the ocean case is that all may die but at at least all die with the happiness that their integrity as human moral beings was intact.
Still a liberal in the Bentham-Mill definition - or anything but? So why retain the name liberal? Because it is an established brand name. Why not be honest and not misuse the good name of liberalism?