Dubya complained those that dared to examine the Administration's overblown claims about Iraq's threat level that drove us into war are 'revisionist historians'.

Basically what he's said is that these 'historians' are now just Democrats misinterpreting what was said at the time, after the fact.

When the Bush people said 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', what they really meant was 'Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs', and when they said "chemical weapons at the ready", they really meant "chemical weapons programs at the ready, etc."

What these critics are disregarding is that Saddam was a very very bad and un-godly man for a long time. Such a man deserves to be punished, and it was the Christian duty of the US to do the punishing.

Forget those Senate hearings, press briefings and Powell's dramatic and frightening testimony to the UN where he made the claim Saddam was sitting on top of an enormous arsenal. Forget the American people were told Saddam was one nervous tick away from launching it all at the good old US of A, and we all should be very, very scared.

You can go to C-SPAN.org and watch the diarrhea gurggle directly from the mouths of Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Fleischer, et. al.

Hard to figure the identity of those nasty 'revisionist historians'?

Do Bush and friends mean those who are seeing things for what they are/were, or those who want us to see things their way so that they don't get hefty war crimes charges levied upon them?

From the King and I, "it's a puzzlement!" Right?

Publius