I disagree. He / they were talking the WMD line before his inauguration. And it was not separate and later than the "bad guy, got to go" rationale.

Bush sees Saddam as 'big threat,' may use force
Washington |Reuters | 19-01-2001

On the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War, President-elect George W. Bush declared Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "a big threat" and said on Thursday he must be contained - by military force if necessary. In a 45-minute interview with Reuters two days before his inauguration as the 43rd president of the United States, Bush also called Saddam "a wild card" who could destabilize the world's oil supplies.

Asked if he would use military force against the Iraqi leader, Bush replied: "If he crosses the line, the answer's yes. If we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction, the answer's yes."


>I'm not sure why everone keeps saying this.
>
>When I was debating the war before it started, which was years ago, we talked about the Bush Doctrine, the idea that we no longer tolerate the dictators.
>
>This was a major part of the discussion in the lead up to the war, yet most of the anti-war party seems to think it was something that showed up later. (Which is too bad because for a vocal group of people it would be nice if they were aware of the actual debate they thought they were taking part in.) In fact, the WMD claims showed up later when it looked like there wasn't enough support on the idea that democracy would be better for Iraq.
>
>Given the average Joe's inability to really give a shit about Iraqi freedom, maybe lieing about the WMD was the right thing to do, at least inasfar as the world will be a better place for it?