Rewriting History - By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

[WillyT]

<snip>

Oct. 6 - With virtually all of the administration’s original case for war in Iraq in tatters, Vice President Dick Cheney provided shifting and sometimes misleading arguments in last night’s debate with John Edwards about Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists and his access to weapons of mass destruction.

Cheney, responding to moderator Gwen Ifill’s first question, said that “concern” about Iraq before the war had “specifically focused” on the fact that Saddam’s regime had been listed for years by the U.S. government as a “state sponsor of terror,” that Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal operated out of Baghdad, that Saddam paid $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and that he had an “established relationship” with Al Qaeda.

But except for the allegation about Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda—a claim that is now more in question than ever—the other examples cited by Cheney in Tuesday night’s debate never have been previously emphasized by Bush administration officials, and for good reasons.

<snip>

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192327/site/newsweek/

I love the fact that that graphic above is sitting on MSNBC's homepage, right next to:

No Iraqi WMD

The top U.S. weapons inspector has concluded
that Iraq had no biological or chemical weapons stockpiles
before the U.S. invasion and its nuclear program
had decayed since 1991.

[Cha]

1. PIGS ARE FLYING!!!

michael/newsweak/isikoff is saying something true about the neofascists!!

[WillyT]

2. Gonna Need A Bigger Umbrella, LOL !!!

:hi:

[proud patriot]

3. Wheeeeee !

:bounce:

[librechik]

4. WHAT! Those two are the biggest hos around!

I was just listening to Hosenball suck up to Bush this am on Washington Journal!

Could this be a turning point?

[nyhuskyfan]

5. His counterpoints on Edwards don't fly

You can haggle over 120 billion (already spent) vs. 200 billion (allocated), but its lost in the larger point that Edwards was making. I would frankly go along with Sam Seder's point that if you put 1,000 dollars on a car and agree to pay 300 dollars a month for the next five years, that you can't claim that the car cost you 1,000 dollars. We've allocated 200 billion -- so in my eyes, that's the current cost of the war. Either way, Edwards' central point was that the first Gulf War only cost us five billion, because we had a better coalition in place, so if you decide, "Well, it's only 120 billion," that's still 24 times what we paid the last time when we actually had some allies.

I also really think its absurd to count uniformed Iraqis as part of the "coalition" deaths, as if Iraq was somehow part of the coalition to invade itself. If you count the countries who actually did the invading and started the conflict, we're 90 percent. Period.

The quote on Kerry is meaningless.