The news media is coming down hard on Bush jr. because of Kay's conclusion that there exist no WMD in Iraq. To them this represents the failure of Bush policies. I think that it is a little late to point out this failure. The question of the validity of the intelligence could only be proved through invasive measures. What should be it issue is not the validity of the intelligence (or whatever Bush and Cheney did to make it more persuasive). Instead, the patterns of US foreign and military policies must be given greater scrutiny. It is not true that US should not have gone to war because the intelligence was flawed, but because the non-military remedies had not been exhausted. To focus on the intelligence is a childish way of examing the failures of Bush policies. It puts Bush into a debate about what was known or not known. It is as if we are examining Bush policies on a decision tree--given that we knew A, should we have chosen course of action B or C. This is a debate that Bush might yet win. What must be examined is the entire decision tree.