George W. Bush wants Americans to believe that his one month old call to arms against Saddam Hussein is based on newfound connections to terrorists and recently discovered confirmations of weapons of mass destruction. We are told that the evidence, although never revealed to either the American public or the world community, compels, nay, demands that the United States intervene in a "pre-emptive strike" to protect itself from this huge and growing threat.

If this is true, then Mr. Bush is indeed a prophet and visionary with spooky preternatural abilities. For two years ago, even before he had won the White House, he was laying out in some detail the need to overthrow the Iraqi dictator.

Questioned at a presidential primary debate in December 2000, Bush said, '''If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there.''

Brit Hume, one of the two journalists questioning Mr. Bush and the other five candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, asked, ''Take him out?''

Mr. Bush answered, ''The weapons of mass destruction.''' (New York Times, 4 Dec. 2000).

Despite his "clarification," a lot of listeners believed-and still believe-Mr. Bush was referring as much to "him" as to "them." Ultimately, it makes little difference, as Mr. Bush well knows-our military can't take out the weapons without controlling the man who controls the weapons.

On other occasions the Bush campaign was even blunter. Then lead foreign-policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice declared in June of 2000: "Regime change is necessary." Other Bush campaigners who are now major players in drafting Iraqi policy had already mapped out plans on how Saddam Hussein could be overthrown. "Both Mr. [Richard] Perle [now chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon] and Robert Zoellick, a former top aide to Gov. Bush's father, advocate specific steps to oust Saddam." (The Wall Street Journal, 28 June 2000) They recommended carving out chunks of Iraq militarily which would humiliate Saddam Hussein and provide a base for operations. Such a plan would force him to attack, and his massed forces could then be annihilated.

Even as far back as 1998, Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense, and fellow Bush campaign advisers Richard Armitage now Deputy Secretary of State, Dov S. Zakheim and the aforementioned Mr. Perle wrote an open letter to former President Clinton "urging the administration to recognize a provisional government of Iraq headed by the INC," the opposition group, the Iraqi National Conference. (The Washington Post, 3 June 2000)

"Among other measures, the letter called on Clinton to 'help expand liberated areas' in southern and northern Iraq 'by assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.'"

What this all means is the Bush camp has wanted war with Iraq since before Bush had even won the primary. What truly motivates this war remains a mystery. Perhaps it's a need to finish the job his father left undone when Mr. Bush, Sr. refused to topple the Iraqi dictator, especially after the elder Bush had demonized Saddam by calling him another Hitler and citing any number of Iraqi "atrocities," many of which proved to be pure propaganda.

More likely, it's the huge payday big energy companies will glean once the vast oil fields are "liberated." Remember, this is the man whose father and grandfather worked in the oil industry, who himself worked for three oil companies, whose vice-president worked for an oil company, and whose security advisor worked for an oil company. His secretary of the army worked for the ill-fated Enron, an energy company which before it bilked its shareholders made a lot of money in oil.

His big energy donors and even his father, the elder George Bush, stand to gain immense profits once the vast oil revenues start flowing to U.S. corporations instead of U.N. food banks. Former President Bush works for the Carlyle Group, a consulting firm for, among other concerns, oil companies. In a bizarre twist, the Carlyle Group counts among its clients the Bin Laden family, whose most famous son heads the Al Qaeda terrorist organization (Judicial Watch, 28 September 2001). As for the French and Russian firms that already have pending contracts for future Iraqi oil, well . . . to the winner goes the spoils.

Americans are supposed to believe that we now face a clear and present danger from Iraq that is so compelling that an immediate pre-emptive strike remains our only real option. We're asked to believe this despite the obvious fact that Bush and his team have discussed their desire to overthrow Saddam Hussein for some four years, at least.

On a recent Sunday morning news show, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash) was interviewed while touring Baghdad. Asked if he thought Mr. Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein's threat to the U.S., the congressman cited the lies of previous administrations during wartime, such as the Vietnam War in which he-unlike the president and the vice-president-had served. When pressed, he replied, "It would not surprise me if they [the Bush administration] came up with some information that is not provable. I think the president would mislead the American people."

Unless George W. Bush has psychic powers, it seems that he not only would mislead us, but has.