New York Times Editorial - Was the Intelligence Cooked?

Like most Americans, we believed the government's repeated warnings that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction threatened the security of the world. The urgent need to disarm Saddam Hussein was the primary reason invoked for going to war in March rather than waiting to see if weapons inspectors could bring Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs under control.

It would still be premature to conclude that Iraq abandoned its efforts to manufacture and stockpile unconventional arms after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991. But after weeks of futile searching by American teams, it seems clear that Iraq was not bristling with horrific arms and that chemical and biological weapons were not readily available to frontline Iraqi forces.

Sorry, it was obvious if you listened to the unbiased sources that Iraq had given up unconventional arms programs after the first Gulf War. This was why I started blogging. I found out that this administration was lying and had a deliberate and conscious pattern of lying about anything to help any of their agendas.

The issue goes to the heart of American leadership. Mr. Bush's belief that the United States has the right to use force against nations that it believes may threaten American security is based on the assumption that Washington can make accurate judgments about how serious such a danger is. If the intelligence is wrong, or the government distorts it, the United States will squander its credibility. Even worse, it will lose the ability to rally the world, and the American people, to the defense of the country when real threats materialize.

The most favorable view is that the intelligence was bad, which invalidates the Bush doctrine that based on U.S. intelligence the U.S. will preemptively militarily intervene in other countries.

There is even more evidence that what intel they had was slanted and distorted by people to support an undemocratic agenda.