I'll wait for the administrations response. It doesn't quote Bush. Looks like Dearlove assessment but doesn't mention he spoke to in the US.
On 5/6/05, Dana wrote: > "Bush > wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the > conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were > being fixed around the policy. > > --big snip-- > > It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take > military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case > was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD > capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should > work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN > weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification > for the use of force. > > The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a > legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: > self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The > first and second could not be the base in this case." > > Dana > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:156648 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
