Bush Didn't Lie!

Via the Instapundit, got this great editorial from the Chicago Tribune:

After reassessing the administration's nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of "the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.

And follows it up with this:

Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now--what this matrix chronicles-- affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003. We hope these editorials help Tribune readers assess theirs.

Read it all. Indeed, a cogent "post-game" analysis of the adminstration's case is what we need right now, and this is it. They do a good job in pointing out that Bush probably overplayed the whole WMD point because of its sexiness, which is probably true. I felt Bush's biggest problem in advancing the case for war was that he didn't illustrate well enough (unlike Tony Blair, who was spectacular and vigorous on this point) that the convergence of WMD producing nations and terrorist organizations willing to be the delivery vehicles were what we were trying to prevent.