I don't feel like getting too deep into this subject.   What I will say, however, is PLEASE use multiple sources when following this story.   Andrew Sullivan is up front and clear that the lens he views the world through is NeoCon.    His take on the Kay reports:

Translation: Saddam was lying to the U.N. as late as 2002. He was required by the U.N. to fully cooperate. He didn't. The war was justified on those grounds alone. Case closed. Some of the physical evidence still remains, despite what was clearly a deliberate, coordinated and thorough attempt to destroy evidence before during and after the war. Among the discoveries:

He's got a lot of great, very readable bullet points  (IMHO, good bullet point technique should be mandatory study in grade school - consummable data is just as important as long elegant paragraphs;  Sullivan's bullets are with the best of 'em - a single concise, quantitative bit of data per point).    On the other side, CNN says:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The head of the CIA's search for banned weapons in Iraq is likely Friday to face a second day of tough questions in Washington after admitting his team so far had not found any weapons of mass destruction.

I don't think either party is free from Bias.   Andrew Sullivan just happens to admit his.

UPDATE:  Chris picks up where Andrew Sullivan leaves off:

Andrew Sullivan put up some important bullet points about the Kay report. Oddly, they only seem to come from the first third of the report, and many of the interesting bits come in the second two thirds.