Scott Peterson in the Christian Science Monitor warns that in war, some facts are less factual. Peterson says some of the government's assertions from the last war on Iraq "still appear dubious."

"Past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action."

Peterson backs this up with specific examples. And these comments by others:

"John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine and author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, says that considering the number of senior officials shared by both Bush administrations, the American public should bear in mind the lessons of Gulf War propaganda."

"These are all the same people who were running it more than 10 years ago," Mr. MacArthur says. "They'll make up just about anything ... to get their way."

Peterson says that analysts "note that little evidence so far of an imminent threat from Mr. Hussein's weapons of mass destruction has been made public."

An unnamed government source with twenty years intelligence experience had this to say:

"This administration is capable of any lie ... in order to advance its war goal in Iraq....It is one of the reasons it doesn't want to have UN weapons inspectors go back in, because they might actually show that the probability of Iraq having [threatening illicit weapons] is much lower than they want us to believe."

According to former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton from Indiana, who has received medals from both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, "I'm always skeptical about intelligence. It's not as pure as the driven snow."

Peterson's point: Keep all this in mind when listening to and evaluating the President's upcoming pitch in his speech to the U.N. next week on why we should go to war.