[Rictor]

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

...

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html

Well, well, well. Looks like someone's got 'splaining to do. That second bit sounds a lot like the Ramboulliet "treaty".

[aldo_14]

Well, colour me unsurprised.

[Janos]

1. We're there for democracy. Let's see how well you handle casualties when they have fallen for some country you have never paid any attention to! hypocrites
2. Oh yeah we need to secure strategic reserves too. Uhm. For Mordor.

[IceFire]

Big...surprise there....*sarcasm*

Iraq and Saddam Hussein was mentioned by Bush officials maybe a month or two after the 9/11 attacks.  It was on the mainstream media.  I was studying the media at that time for a communications research essay.  I think I even said to my dad "Sounds like they may even go after Iraq".  And surprise surprise...they did.

[aldo_14]

I think that even before 9/11 it was being predicted that Bush would make attacking Saddam Hussein a priority, simply to 'finish what his dad started'.

[karajorma]

And also in revenge for the assassination attempt.

[WMCoolmon]

Yeah, this is pretty sad.

Especially the part about the White House ignoring the request for info by 89 congressmen. It's nice hearing someone in high levels of government is thinking along the same lines as me; it's disappointing that the higher levels of government are blatantly ignoring them.