Bush was wrong, but he did not lie, and he did not pressure anyone to mislead. Democrats and the editors of he New York Times know perfectly well that it was intelligence analysts who were convinced of Saddam's WMDs for reasons having nothing to do with pressure from the evil Bush or the ultra-evil Cheney. They know because an excruciatingly detailed bipartisan investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded as much in 2004. This in-depth look at the issue also uncovered the actual (and very understandable) reasons why the Intelligence Community got it so wrong.
Did the intelligence community get it wrong? Now that appears to be the case. But I'm personally waiting for Version 5.0 of the WMD issue to emerge. And even if it doesn't, does anybody seriously believe that Saddam wouldn't have tried to cover what seems at this point to be his bluff as soon as possible?
But assuming this was a bluff, we have to remember that Saddam bluffed because he believed he needed those weapons to survive. And with all his material, money, and knowledge, does anybody believe that Saddam would not have converted his bluff into reality as soon as he could? Remember, Saddam thought he needed them to survive. He would not have been satisfied with a bluff for longer than he had to.
And does anybody really think that Saddam wouldn't have been free to build WMD had we not invaded? In the spring of 2001, we were already talking of "smart sanctions" to try and salvage the sanctions regime. This would have theoretically kept sanctions on just weapons imports while lifting sanctions generally. Sanctions were crumbling.
And we now know that the French and Russians were benefitting from oil-for-food and so know that they would have pushed for the end of sanctions. Better to preserve their profits if Saddam survives and keeps quiet about their roles. Further, the UN itself had reason to keep Saddam in power in order to hide their criminal enterprises in oil-for-food. Ah, the international community! Such a moral exemplar!
The bottom line is that we stopped a future in which Saddam or his psychopath sons had weapons of mass destruction. And that includes nukes.
We either stopped Saddam from getting WMD he didn't have yet--and as a bonus stopped Saddam himself--or we haven't found whatever WMD were in Iraq as late as 2002, but which Saddam ditched under our pressure. I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually found out we did the latter. But regardless, we now have an allied and free Iraq with no WMD. So of course the NYT is going to be all angry with that for years to come.
