My answer to this post. First of all, I did not said that much so far on the topic, so my views are somewhat improperly implied:
The move to paint Bush as a lone operator, bent on deceiving the country and the world, intent on starting a war that he had planned for years before he was even elected has, as I noted several times before, become farcical.
No, almost the opposite. I believe that Bush is a dummy selected by the party of war to increase the U.S. military presence at Middle East and return the Iraq oil reserves back to the market, and, importantly, outside the control of OPEC. I think that very limited parts of the Bush brain are dedicated to understanding the politics in general and Iraq in particular.
My claim that Bush lied is based on the simple fact that the Wilson report on the false origin of the Niger yellowcake claim was on Bush table in Feb ’02, while he was continuing to use that story in his speeches for 12 more months. I think it’s still pretty bold fact.
Obviously, the plans to invade Iraq predate 9/11 by years, and your perfect links are only supporting that. Many Democratic leaders were fed by a good deal of a mix of unverified intelligence and lobbying by that party of war. I’m confident that they have enough reasons to say all kind of bad words about Saddam, but I see no evidence that Clinton cabinet was even thinking about the invasion. Anyone can be brainwashed, including Sen. Clinton:
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
Just a little bit of thinking and knowledge of the word politics would suggest that for Saddam the U.S, Israel and Al-Qaeda were enemies #1, #2 and #3, not necessary in that order. Suggesting that Saddam could have being supplying Al-Qaeda members with anything but bullets in the head sounds almost as crazy to me as seeing him budding with Israel against Iran, for example.