Taking out Iraq has been on the neoconservative agenda since at least the early-to-mid-1990s. When they got into W's administration they got their chance. But there may be consequences.
Now denials are coming thicker and faster. Strong ties to and support of Al Qaeda? What "ties" - we just don't know. Nuclear materials from Niger? "They" said that. Ties to 9/11? Who said ties to 9/11? WMDs? Who said WMDs? He had programs that would lead to WMDs. And, of course: "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction..."
In Friday's Wall Street Journal [requires a subscription for access] a neoconservative luminary is quoted as saying: "...some of us may have been too glib about an 'easy liberation'." [Joshua Muravchik, author of "The Imperative of American Leadership" 1996.] Glib about life and death?
Then on Saturday, I watched Andrew Sullivan on "The Chris Matthews Show" [the show transcript hasn't been posted yet but should be up in the next few days] saying that Bush never claimed that the threat was imminent - he said it could become imminent. Unless my memory is totally shot, somebody said it.
You can find out why the invasion actually happened, in Bob Woodward's "Bush At War." The book is clearly a love note, not a hatchet job. In spite of that, it reveals some of the Bush Administration thinking and actions that led to the Invasion of Iraq. I haven't heard of anyone in the Administration disputing statements like: