I don't say this with hindsight, but with fatalism. I knew that the invasion was going to happen no matter what. It was clear at the time from the politcal body language of the situation. What gets me is that so many other people couldn't, or wouldn't, see it then, or now.

That's what dictators do, isn't it? Face it, the U.S. is no more a republic than Burma is. The executive branch is accountable to no one. They do whatever they see fit. So stop calling the U.S. a democracy or a republic. It's a facist dictatorship and will stay that way until the people rise up and take back their country. Yeah, I'll hold my breath for that. :-

All this does is confirm what we've known for years -- as reported widely in March 2003, here is Dubya's policy statement back in 2002:

"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

Do we REALLY need further confirmation that this President had already decided to attack Iraq and bring down Saddam Hussein? That he was going to do it regardless of what the U.N. did or didn't do? That he didn't particularly care if Iraq had WMDs? That it would be convenient, but not crucial, to have a so-called "Coalition of the Willing" supporting our actions?

No, no, no and no.

It's been well established for years that this cretin and his acolytes had set their sights on Iraq and its leader. At this late, late date, we pretty much know all we need to know about how we got into this debacle.

. . .that the Wolfewitz Cabal approached W while he was still governor of Texas and a presidential candidate.

He seemed to be the only candidate who thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq (imagine that!), and so he got the backing of Wolfewitz et al.

The rest is history. Sept. 11, 2001 was just a handy-dandy excuse. Those terrorists had nothing to do with Iraq, but apparently the Murcan People will believe anything.

At this point I believe that the Democrats in Congress still wouldn't do anything if a Bush conversation from today was leaked today saying the same thing about Iran.

If Bush canceled the 2008 elections I'd bet on the Democrats not doing anything but offering to negotiate on the timing for bringing elections back. Sure, it better than the many Republicans, and Joe Lieberman, who would actively oppose doing anything else but we still deserve, and need, better.

off topic - Will we ever be able to edit posts? I seem to be habitually unable to see most of my typos and grammatical errors until after I hit "publish" even with the preview. *doh*

So the President lied to us about his rationale for committing us to an invasion an occuptation of Iraq and broke a few international laws in the process.

So what?

This is just an attempt to distract for the real news which is how Britney Spears raises her kids!

I wonder if any TV news outlet will give this story more than 5mins?

I can see Katie Couric right now reading the teleprompter:

"Today some dude in other country claims he spoke to Pres. Bush and Bush said he was commited to invading Iraq no matter what the UN said. The White House was asked for comment and denied it. In other news...."

I'll be shocked if it's given that much coverage.

I double-dawg dare you. When do we "march" on the capitol?

If Bush canceled the 2008 elections I'd bet on the Democrats not doing anything but offering to negotiate on the timing for bringing elections back.

Well, first Harry Reid would apologize to King Bush for not abolishing the elections sooner!

Perhaps instead of focusing on impeaching Bush would should focus on impeaching Harry Reid -- shouldn't we replace this "man" with someone that actually has testicales and a spinal column?

Whimpering and cowering before Bush are two things that Harry and Nancy seem to do best -- but maybe fliching and sobbing aren't exactly the best strategy to control an imperial President?

It ought to have been clear to anyone that Bush and the cabal surrounding him were intent on invading Iraq no matter what. All the "diplomacy" he engaged in in the period leading up to the invasion was focused, not on finding some way to avoid war, but on trying (with very limited success) to drum up support for it. The tone of everything he said confirmed this, as did his unwillingness to allow the inspectors that were there to properly complete their job. Saddam could have come crawling on his knees and Bush would have still declared that, in some way, he was not doing what was being demanded of him. The decision was already made.

The Downing Street memo, which basically asserted that intelligence was being manipulated to fit the predetermined policy, caused a brief stir, but then the story was simply allowed to die out. I wonder if this report in El Pais will even receive mention in the MSM.

The oil and weapons companies and their band of merry gangstas OWN this country. Yes we have been totally taken over by the MIC. Ike got that right. It is an illusion that we are a democracy. Check out the progress in Congress if you don't believe this.

Hey, don't forget Poland!

But, despite not getting the support they wanted from "Old Europe," they convinced enough Americans that Saddam's huge fleet of drone aircraft were going fly across the Atlantic to spray chemical weapons and drop nukes on us. So, in that respect, "mission accomplished."

that Bush was going to invade Iraq before the end of March at the latest because summer temperatures there would prevent doing so later. Robert Draper reprises that in his new book. The idea of a second resolution never had a chance.

Look at Woodward's second book about W.Bush. Bush and his people were almost completely open about their plans to invade no matter what. They let Woodward see all their preparations, even while they still had their phoney-baloney diplomatic and UN ruses in place.