What's up with the credibility of US officials and our intelligence community? The world opposed Bush's war in Iraq. While all expressed the courage to take necessary steps to protect peace, more seasoned leaders asked only that UN inspectors have sufficient time to complete their work to disarm Saddam diplomatically. Bush, and his Republican supporters, would not heed these cries. They rushed to use force. Destruction is easy, and it is now clear reconstruction will be far more complicated than the Bush administration anticipated.

Special L.A. Times Report [6.13.03]: "Bad Iraq Data From Start to Finish"

During the final days of May, the Bush administration elevated the national terror warning system to HIGH, at a cost of close to $100 million. Yet we witnessed no attacks against US targets, or heard of no thwarted attempts. We are fully aware our nation was unprepared on September 11th. The question citizens must ask now is what's wrong with our intelligence?

We are highlighting the results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted between May 30th and June 1st. Nearly one-third of Americans now believe President Bush "deliberately misled" the public about Iraq's WMDs. Unless the Bush team comes up with some hard evidence in the upcoming weeks, this number is bound to increase.

As a result, there is a growing call for review of this latest Bush SNAFU. Led by Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana), a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, lawmakers are questioning not only the administration's claims of Iraq's WMDs, but also their position on Saddam's link to Al Qaeda and international terror [Image A]. Was the US under "imminent threat" of attack, as Bush told the world before advancing militarily on Baghdad?

Bush is not the only elected official on the hot seat. Tony Blair, Britain's Prime Minister, is taking serious heat from leaders in Europe [Image B]. There is signficant information suggesting the "evidence" distributed by the two governments had been doctored. Blair claims this allegation is "totally false."

So, what happened? On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN [Image C]. In a highly polished and sophisticated presentation, Powell revealed to the world latest satellite photos, the best US intelligence available, and stated unequivocally that Saddam currently possessed WMDs. More importantly, Powell claimed Saddam was positioned to use these massively deadly weapons against the west.

Powell also alleged Saddam maintained an elaborate system to house mobile biological weapons production units in big-rig trailors and train box cars [Image D]. While a couple big-rig trailors have been discovered that are similar to Powell's diagram, US experts found no evidence they had ever been used, and determined they would be very poor labs for weapon production -- if this was the intended purpose. As the mobile facilities contained large fermentation units, one wonders if they were designed for alcohol production. Iraq, a Muslim nation, prohits the production and consumption of alcohol. Did Bush take America into war to break up a home beer brewery?

Powell sheepishly appeared before the media on June 2nd. He now claims, "Iraq did have weapons... they aren't a figment of anyone's imagination" [Image E]. If so, why didn't Saddam use these weapaons? He was cornered, facing death and with little to lose. US intelligence also claimed Saddam would torch Iraq's oil wells, destroy dams and attack Israel. He did none of this.

One thing is certain: Bush's credibility is on the line (again). He now has over 1,000 expert inspectors combing Iraq looking for WMDs [Image F]. Whether his specialists find them really doesn't matter. It is clear to the world Saddam wasn't the threat to the US that Bush claimed. History will write the assessment whether Saddam's brutal tactics were necessary.

To date, Bush has yet to get a grasp on Iraq. The world now watches as "Bush the Destroyer" tries to morph into "Bush the Creator." For the sake of the desperate people of Iraq, we ask Bush to get it right this time. This immature and sophomoric politician, who ridiculed the Democratic position regarding the importance of nation building, has his [ass] credibility on the line.