The Washington Times puts its best spin on the story, saying we have confirmed that Saddam had the intent to make WMDs again, but let's be honest, the lack of WMDs is a huge blow to our credibility. Count me as an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War, but don't kid yourself: while convinced of their presence, we used the WMDs as a cover for removing a cancer from the Middle East. I firmly believed the WMDs were there, so did the members of the UN Security Council, so did the U.S. Congress, so did Bush - still, they weren't there. We should have known better than to make WMDs the centerpiece of our war argument, in light of the flimsiness of the evidence, when the better argument was the humanitarian, anti-totalitarian one.
The credibility of the United States was severely damaged by this lack of good intelligence; any military moves we must make in the future will now be scrutinized even more by those who oppose our foreign policy goals. Saddam WAS a direct threat to the United States; he did have to be removed; Bush never said 'imminent' threat - all of this is true, but somewhat beside the point. This blunder has still not resulted in enough rolling of heads, but it's too late now. The damage has been done. The outcome in Iraq is even more crucial in light of this - crucial to the Iraqi people, and crucial to the long view of the Bush Administration. We've got to get this done right, no matter how long it takes.