I find this article to be creatively pretentious.
The article preamble suggests that they are only presenting facts in a matrix for readers to decern for themselves, then adds to the "what we now know" and "verdict" opnions on what the short facts mean. To read this and trust its objectivity would obviously slant a readers opnion against going to war based on what we supposedly know now. Do not be fooled. There is a lot missing and it is grossly over simplified.
For instance, they mention that Saddaam had the programs in place to reinstate a WMD program but no mention that Bush was right in his assertion that it was dangerous to America to let that capability go unchecked. In otherwords, they conveniently left out that if the status quo were maintained, then Iraq would have undoubtedly been a major international threat at all sorts of levels starting with terrorism and ending with nuclear weapons attacks on America or our interests. To get a clear picture using this information, mix and match their conclusions with the reasons stated in Bush's "nine point" speech. You will see that some of their conclusions that weaken Bush's argument strengthen it for other points.
I believe this to be a creative writing peice disguised as an objective report more than factual reporting.
Ditto. Very poor job of compiling the available information.