] Invading Iraq was definitely on the table before 9/11. We've
] had a sustained military situation for years there.
] Furthermore, I do not have a problem with that.

(nod) I hear what you're saying...

And I agree that invasion has been an option that was considered. The specific problem that I have with that part of the piece is that it's trying to reinforce the "Bush wanted to invade Iraq from Day 1" story, which I don't believe is true. It *is* true that regime change in Iraq was an early priority, but that's not solely a Bush thing -- multiple Presidents from both sides of the aisle have wanted Saddam gone. Not to mention the leaders of nearly every other nation on the planet.

My belief is that if Bush could have found a valid non-military option of removing Saddam, he would have taken it. But the piece doesn't say "Bush wanted Saddam gone." It says, "Bush wanted to invade". So that's one of the keyphrases that makes me lose interest. Any editorial or argument that tries to make the Iraq war sound like the result of some sort of personal problem that Bush had with Saddam, makes me lose respect for the author, because I feel that they're either (a) pushing an agenda; (b) irrational; or (c) uninformed.

RE: Mr. Bush's Version (of History? of the Present? of Reality?)