What Is the Real Reason George Bush Invaded Iraq?

someone over at huffpost tries to answer the question:

"What Is the Real Reason George Bush Invaded Iraq?"

i still dont have a clue - and it drives me mad. the author offers 3 reasons - war profiteers, israel, and the neocons.

NEO-CONSERVATIVES: On January 27, 1998—three and a half years before the 9/11 attacks—the Project for the New American Century published an open letter in The Washington Times urging President Clinton to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Among the eighteen signatories to this letter were ten people who would later join the Bush Administration. They are:
• Donald Rumsfeld: Secretary of Defense
• John Bolton: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
• Paul Wolfowitz: President of the World Bank and formerly Deputy Secretary of Defense
• Zalmay Khalilzad: U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
• Robert Zoellick: Deputy Secretary of State
• Elliott Abrams: Deputy National Security Advisor
• Peter Rodman: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
• Paula Dobriansky: Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
• Richard Armitage: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
• Richard Perle: Former Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board
Among the other founders of the Project for the New American Century were Dick Cheney, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Jeb Bush and Dan Quayle.

In 1998, these neo-conservatives wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein because it was "almost certain" that he would "acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction," thus putting at risk American troops, Israel, moderate Arab states "and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil."

i dont particularly wanna rehash this neocon argument again at the mo' - but it sure is a helluva list. the one thing that i have been meaning to mention is that dick armitage is on this list. i can see a meme developing that maybe armitage leaked to woodward, and if he did, it truly was 'gossipy' and he meant no illwill beccause he wasnt really a neocon, and he was at State, and he basks in powell's (undeserved) halo.

armitage is as evil as the rest of em - and he was also on the board of one of the companies that is providing a lot of the 'contractors' to iraq.

robert zoellick also gets a lot of good press. god knows why. and when condi chose him ahead of edelman, it was seen as a 'win' for the realists. (more on edelman soon)

and of course, there's also Khalilzad - who doesnt get nearly the bad press that he deserves.

i'll also note that these people were able to reiterate their WMD story - despite the fact that their werent any wmd's - or even any evidence of them. and i'll also note that this same letter almost begged for a 'new peal harbour' so that they could implement their plans. funny how these things work out...