Correction (before Teribus accuses me of spreading lies or worse), I said Cheney's words were "new evidence". The actual words were "new information". Same song, same dance, but just for clarity and accuracy.... Yes, I was wrong, in the specific language. The actual language is now here for you to judge as to whether I misrepresented the "gist" of Cheney's statement with my substitution.

As Ron Davies points out, Cheney didn't then plow on into the specific reports of Atta meeting with Iraqi officers in Prague ... ummm, let me think ... for the purpose of "clearly" refuting Saddam's involvement in 9/11. But, strange as it may seemm, that's what Teribus wants you all to believe. Of course, Teribus must think the lot of us are completely stoopid, certainly enough to accept such 'logic'. The actual situation, of course, is the converse.

At this point, given the obvious mendacity of his arguments, curious folks have to wonder if 'Teribus' is actually a double agent sent to make Dubya and company look bad ... or whether the Dubya sycophants are exhibiting some new (or rewarmed from 70 years ago) group psychopathology.

Cheers,