The United States’ justification for invasion and continued occupation of Iraq grows more… The United States’ justification for invasion and continued occupation of Iraq grows more and more threadbare as the days linger, the deaths mount and the purported reasons – like weapons of mass destruction or links to Al-Qaida – remain unfound.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, fired by President Bush at the end of 2002, contends that Bush began laying the groundwork for an invasion days after taking office in 2001, well before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In an interview with “60 Minutes” that aired Saturday, former Pitt trustee and current member of the UPMC Board of Directors O’Neill said that U.S. pre-emptive planning to oust Saddam Hussein was a “huge leap.”

O’Neill is a man noted for his business ethics, having spoken at both Pitt and Duquesne University on the topic. As someone who has been ousted from the Washington political scene, it seems unlikely that he has any particular agenda in expressing his unease, other than the pursuit of truth and fairness.

While it is true that eventually ousting Hussein has been a stated goal of the United States since at least the Clinton administration, it is disquieting that the Bush administration may have begun planning for such an event so early. Bush’s slippery justifications smack of using a terrible tragedy to justify and excuse a plan he’d been working on for months.

What if the attacks had never happened? What if the administration had heeded urgent communiques from the CIA and other intelligence agencies and averted the horror of that day? What shaky rationalization would Bush have used then to drum up support for his ill-thought-out attacks?

As American troops continue to perish and the term “quagmire” becomes increasingly relevant to the situation in Iraq, it is worth pondering: if Bush has been planning to invade Iraq since just about day one of his presidency, why wasn’t it better planned? If this has been in the works since 2001, perhaps some fair plan for rebuilding could have been worked out.

No one disputes that Hussein was a ruthless dictator, and that the world is probably better off without him in power. Perhaps it would have been more difficult for Bush to convince Americans of the need to attack without a national tragedy, but it would certainly have been more honest.