Get to the bottom of why U.S. intelligence on Iraq was so flawed
The News Tribune

The Bush administration and the Central Intelligence Agency have a lot of explaining to do about the main reason for going to war with Iraq. Congress should hold hearings on why pre-war intelligence assessments of Iraq's ability to threaten the United States were so wildly inaccurate.

David Kay's conclusion that Saddam Hussein didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction is haunting both the Bush administration and the CIA. It was a stunning admission from Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector, who firmly believed his investigative team would eventually find WMD stockpiles.

Kay resigned Friday, but not before setting off what could become a major political firestorm undermining the validity of the administration's main rationale for launching the war with Iraq. Administration officials essentially sold the war to the American public by claiming Saddam possessed dangerous weapons and was prepared to turn them on the United States and its allies.

What Kay found instead was a weapons program deeply mired in corruption and disarray and manipulated by scientists who conned Saddam's regime ouf of large sums of money to pay for nonexistent projects.

Whether it was faulty analysis by the CIA or manipulation of intelligence data by President Bush and other pro-war administration officials isn't clear at this point. Either alternative is inexcusable. What is painfully clear is that the war to oust Saddam and the ongoing, open-ended U.S. effort to rebuild Iraq and establish democracy is costing this nation dearly, both in terms of money spent - about $120 billion so far - and American lives lost.

Despite the capture of Saddam last month by U.S. troops, deadly attacks on American forces haven't ceased. Iraqi guerrillas detonated roadside bombs to kill six more U.S. soldiers Tuesday, bringing the total number of American fatalities to 519.

President Bush and other administration officials are now arguing that the war was justified even without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction. Their after-the-fact argument misses the point.

No responsible person doubts that the world is better off with Saddam gone or that the United States must finish the job of rebuilding Iraq. To do otherwise would leave a political vacuum that would likely be filled by anti-American terrorists.

But given the enormity of the undertaking and the considerable sacrifice of American forces, the American public had a right to straight answers to questions raised before the war about the administration's case for toppling Saddam. Americans still have that right - and they're still waiting for credible answers.