The slightly-infamous Downing Street Memo is finally getting some traction in the US media. The document - official notes of a British Prime Minister's meeting of July 23, 2002, eight months before the US invaded Iraq, reveals that the US had definitely already decided to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and that it was busily "fixing" intelligence to support the pre-determined conclusion.

In other words, all of the circumstantial evidence - the shifting rationales, the cropping up of documents from before the war was supposedly approved, etc. - was correct, according to an authenticated memo from Britain. Paul Krugman talks about it in today's New York Times:

Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, "the case was thin" and Saddam's "W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran"? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.

The problem with this scenario, still, is that a majority of rational people have real difficulty believing that the US government would invade another country for what essentially amounts to no reason. Everyone recognizes that a US-friendly Iraq has benefits to US oil interests, but most people think invading Iraq for oil is a wacky conspiracy theory. I tend to agree, because the people in charge know that if they get found out, they're going to prison. Even if the action does benefit the oil industry, it's hard for me to believe it was undertaken primarily to benefit the oil industry.

But every week, I keep thinking back to this post from last October. It got almost no attention in the media, and since it appeared just days before the election, people like Jerry were skeptical of it, but it has stuck with me:

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."

Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.

I think Bush's second-term agenda was decided upon long before the election, but things like privatizing Social Security under the guise of "strengthening America's future" only work if the public believes you've actually made America stronger. If they'd gotten the rose-petal welcomes they thought a war against Iraq would generate, I doubt we'd be going through this Nuclear Option crap right now either, as the GOP wouldn't have to pay off the extremist right for barely getting Bush back into the White House.

I think the real plan was for domestic policy programs, like ending Social Security, the awful bankruptcy bill, and other programs that the majority of Americans oppose - and would only approve if personally backed by an intensely-popular wartime president.

Going to war over oil just doesn't make sense to me, but this does. I wish someone would look into it.