Right on! Thanks1 That is why I posted it in the first place. I thought it was obvious, but I should have pointed it out initially.
Also it shed some light on the mindset of the Bush administration. There never was any question about a diplomatic solution with Iraq. It was going to be an invasion from the start. The diplomatic efforts were just to build a coalition for the operation and get Congressional approval. Undoubtedly a much more Constitutional way than Obama has used, so that is to Bush’s credit. The WMD intelligence turned out to be from a single source with an agenda. It only looked like multiple sources because it came through multiple intelligence services. Saddam never should have tried to kill GWB’s daddy!
Regarding mindset of the Bush Administration, this paragraph of Thomas Lifson’s article that I just posted as a separate thread is significant:
“I think the Daily Mail has buried the lead. For one thing, the secret memo to President Bush authored by then US secretary of State Colin Powell, rather than proving Blair was committed to war clearly states, “On Iraq, Blair will be with us SHOULD military operations BE NECESSARY (caps mine, GF).” That is a contingency. If diplomacy had succeeded, then Blair would not be committed to war.”
This was CONTINGENCY planning. in 20 years in the Army, I learned that there are always ‘contingency plans’ so if what you are planning doesn’t go ‘as planned’ you have a “plan B” to fall back on. And there was plenty of WMD stuff in Iraq, it was just not all nuclear related. Saddam had a record of using chemical weapons against the Kurds and against the Iranians. And we shipped out a couple of hundred tons of Yellow Cake after 2003, and it is Yellow Cake that is used to get U-235 for nukes.