This is not serious journalism but merely another example of the WP -- and John Galt -- running interference for John Kerry and the left.
Please allow me to explain one thing. I WAS as diehard, stuck in the mud, convinced President Bush lied to justify war with Iraq when WMD's failed to appear as anyone. Then I realized, through my friend's suggestion, that OUR intelligence was based on what Iraqi's BELIEVED about Saddam. We thought he possessed WMD's because he chose NOT to admit to the world he did NOT have the capability and would not account for the known missing stockpiles.
If you recall, even the shell game was continued in the midst of the war as to WHO had WMD's and who was to be given the order to use them. Each battalion thought the next one had the capability when actually, it appears none did.
Recall also, Scott Ritter telling Congress Iraq possessed no viable WMD program, but Iraq still failed to be totally truthful, but no explaination from Iraq followed.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998_h/ws915981.htm
Pay especially close attention to Ritter's last paragraph and this remark, "If recent history is any guide, there will be many pressures placed upon the Special Commission, most behind the scenes and as such out of public view, to make compromises of substance concerning Iraq's unfulfilled disarmament obligations."
Saddam offered to meet secretly with President Bush in '93 - but he would not because Saddam's interest was to remain in control of Iraq. It is likely Saddam would have admitted to President Bush the why's and how's of him not coming clean with the world.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/7192639.htm
Certainly, I'm not running interference for Kerry or the left - I'm trying to understand how our intelligence could have been so WRONG. In light of what I see now, I don't believe President Bush was lying, but that the deceit was purposed in Iraq by Saddam and the CIA bought into the ploy. For whatever that's worth, that's how I see it NOW.