'Damning Senate report won't alter US strategy'

Even the harshest critics of the Bush administration's policy of pre-emption say the United States must act in the face of a clear threat.

What is a clear threat? Can the public trust what US intelligence says about that threat?

"Iraq was the first case of pre-emptive war by the United States, and we have learned an important lesson that pre-emptive war depends on good, actionable intelligence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

"In this case, the intelligence was both bad and wrong," said Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which just released its report on prewar intelligence about Iraq.

Months before the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House published a "national security strategy." It abandoned the Cold War reliance on deterring potential enemies with overwhelming military strength and nuclear weapons.

The Sept. 11 attacks showed that America cannot rely on deterrence and must at times strike to prevent attacks, Bush reasoned.

The public version of the document left unstated the implied threat of using nuclear weapons to strike first against weapons of mass destruction.

"The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past," Bush wrote. "We cannot let our enemies strike first."