I think you shouldn't confuse papers that are prepared for someone rather than by that someone.
Classic case is the paper prepared for the Pentagon to outline worst case climate change (remember, the one about the UK becoming frozen due to changes in gulfstream flow).
I was in the UK at the time and every UK paper ran with it as a fact, until somebody realised that the Pentagon had papers prepared canvassing a variety of scenarios, it just happened to be the worst one which got all the coverage.
I also wouldn't read too much into "secret" briefing papers, unless you are aware of the premise under which it is prepared and the conditions defined, you can't judge the outcome without knowing the start point.
This is exactly the problem I have with Moore, he manipulates things to suit his arguement and many times takes things out of context, rearranges the timeline for maximum impact or creates innuendo without substance.
He is entitled to his opinion, but F9/11 is a political propaganda campaign, he freely admits that, so I just hope that people, when they are watching it, understand that, and take that into consideration when they are making their minds up. It is not a documentry, it is not fair and balanced (moores words, not mine), so people shouldn't accept it at face value.
Also forget WMD's, there was almost unanimous agreement that Iraq had WMD's, the only disagreement was the course of action to be taken.
Finally, you don't think that Iraq is a better place now? Also what about the other nations that have fallen into line after seeing what happened to Saddam.
Libya is out of the terrorism business, Iran is becoming more open, and even N Korea is backing away from the brinkmanship they had previously displayed.
You have to take everything into consideration before passing judgement.