So should this one be called the "Oval Office Memo"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I mean, how many more "memos" do we need to prove that Bush is out-and-out LYING when he says he wanted war as a last resort?

We have the Downing Street Memo.
We have testimony from former White House head of counter-terrorism Richard Clarke.
We have testimony from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niell.
We have the PNAC document (Rebuilding America's Defenses) signed onto by half the administration before they took office.

All of the above indicate clearly that this administration wanted to invade Iraq regardless of WMDs or any other potential threat. They do not simply tell us that "regime change was a goal" (it was with Clinton, too). They tell us that this administration was determined to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq as a matter of foreign policy, with no cassus belli, simply because they wanted to.

(Not to mention the little fact that throughout the months leading up to war, they completely ignored any evidence that would run counter to their drive for war, and actively attacked, denigrated, and even spied upon parties presenting such evidence... including U.N. inspectors and diplomats.)

Now we have the "Oval Office Memo".

And even in this new story, they lie. NSC spokesman Frederick Jones:
"Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

OH REALLY?

I wasn't aware that the White House was publicly stating that they would go to war even if no WMDs were found.

I must have missed the press conference where Bush said that he might try to trick Saddam into firing upon a fake U.N. aircraft so he could claim Iraq was "in breach".

Is that what you mean when you say "the use of force was a last option"?

Is that what you mean when you say "we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly"?