OK. Here's the setup. Cheney said that a "wrong choice" in the presidential election would lead to a terrorist attack.

Next, Cheney want's to "clarify", and lies about what he said.

"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," Cheney told the newspaper. "Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks.

"My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry," Cheney said."

So here's the end of an editorial in the L. A. Times. It started out by saying that Cheney's statement was a fair one to make in a hard campaign, then segued.

"Cheney might deserve credit for brutal clarity, if a spokeswoman hadn't rushed out almost immediately to muddy the waters with a few fictions about what he really meant. What he really meant, she said, was that the next president — whoever he is — will face the danger of another terrorist episode. This has the advantage of being undeniably true and the disadvantage of quite obviously not being what Cheney meant.

"Thanks to this kind of quick and forceful response by the Bush-Cheney campaign, the danger that innocent editorial writers will get hit again by the feeling that Dick Cheney has been unfairly attacked and needs to be defended has been dramatically reduced. And we can all sleep better."

Actually, It's Cheney himself who's doing the lying now, but the idea is the same. What a hoot!!

Arf