The Seattle Times is a Republican paper. Their Sunday editorial has this to say about the missing WMDs:

The hunt for credibility

The Bush administration took the United States into a preemptive war against Iraq based on the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

In the aftermath of a lightning war, neither of those basic premises, asserted for months by the president and senior officials, has held up.

No chemical or biological weapons have been found, so far, and a nascent Iraqi nuclear program referenced by the president in a State of the Union address apparently did not exist.

In the absence of more information, fully aired in public, Americans are left to wonder about the administration's judgment, honesty and competence.

The war was mercifully short, and an unambiguously murderous dictator has been deposed, but the war debate was never narrowly construed to be about the immorality of one man. It was about a military threat to the United States and our friends.

Where is the evidence?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is taking a beating in Parliament, the media and public opinion over accusations his government doctored and exaggerated intelligence on Iraq. Two members of his Cabinet resigned over the war.

In this country, there are protests within the intelligence community that reports were tailored by civilians in the Pentagon and political interests at the White House to fit the decision to go to war.

Did the Bush administration make all this up? That's most unlikely. Previous administrations had similar concerns about Saddam's capabilities and intentions.

Did the Bush White House hype the facts to push the country toward war? Congress needs to take a close, skeptical and public look.

At its core, this is about what comes next, rather than regrets about Saddam.

President Bush is raising his voice over Iran's nuclear capabilities. Can we have confidence in the intelligence that shapes his comments?

Nearly 50 years ago, as the country pondered the military threats posed by the Soviet Union, President Eisenhower summarized the value of developing aerial intelligence.

Without it, "you would only have your fears on which to plan your own defense arrangements and your whole military establishment. Now, if you are going to use nothing but fear ... you are going to make us an armed camp."

In an era of preemptive wars and exploitable fears of terrorism, the stakes are even higher. Congress has a duty to ferret out the facts in public.

The American people need to know more about this war before they are asked to approve the next one.