Two hits today inthe Times Opinion page:
Kristoff on the pattern of dishonesty coming out of the white house:

"So the problem is not those 16 words, by themselves, but the larger pattern of abuse of intelligence. The silver lining is that the spooks are so upset that they're speaking out."

What is helpful about the article is that it exposes the continuing danger (ie, why it matters) of an administration that is willing to manipulate intel (i would label it Machiavellian).

"While the scandal has so far focused on Iraq, the manipulations appear to be global. For example, one person from the intelligence community recalls an administration hard-liner's urging the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research to state that Cuba has a biological weapons program. The spooks refused, and Colin Powell backed them.

Then there's North Korea. The C.I.A.'s assessments on North Korea's nuclear weaponry were suddenly juiced up beginning in December 2001. The alarmist assessments (based on no new evidence) continued until January of this year, when the White House wanted to play down the Korean crisis. Then assessments abruptly restored the less ominous language of the 1990's."

Essay two comes from Paul 'old faithful' Krugman.
He begins with his own 'state of the union':
"More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?"

But what is troubling is that we came to be in this position based on half-assed explanations of intel reports, and immoral politicizing.

"Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.""

Is it immoral to "sweep it all up. Things related and not"? Yes. Is it immoral to 'sell' the war to the public with untruths (or, manipulated evidence, if you prefer the term)? Yes. While politicians will put spin on their actions- there must be a line. It is immoral to gear a country to one of the most important decisions that can be made, whether to go to war, with carefully parsed and deliberately misleading statements. That is what the White House did, and they should be ashamed.