You got a source?

A very reasonable take on it, although it does succumb to the standard United Nations fantasy:

We favored using international inspectors to keep Iraq's destructive programs in check while diplomats forged a United Nations effort to force Mr. Hussein to yield his weapons.

If you can come up with a diplomatic way to force a totalitarian monster to do anything, please let me know. As we saw, the sanction trick was working like a charm. Didn't see Saddam missing any meals, and who cares about anyone else? What's next? Short-sheeting Saddam's bed? Extra Strong Frown Beams?

Face it, the only thing impressing Saddam was aircraft carriers, and for some reason he was convinced we would never use them.

If intelligence and risk assessment are sketchy — and when are they not? — using them as the basis for pre-emptive war poses enormous dangers.

True enough. However, if your sketchy intelligence is telling you that there may be weapons in Iraq capable of wiping out large parts of cities either in the Middle East or America, and you decide it might be wrong and leave Saddam to his devices, what's the danger of a wrong guess there?