... but others did not. Rove is, of course, right when he says Cheney "was describing the conditions in 1994. By 2003, the world had changed. It changed on 9/11, and it became clear -- it should be clear to every American that we live in a dangerous world where we cannot let emerging threats fully materialize in attacks on our homeland." What Rove fails to mention is that while the DANGER Saddam may have posed (or rather, the formula used to calculate that danger) had changed, the core substance of Cheney's comments had not.

Cheney fully admits to the danger Saddam poses in 1994. There is no attempt to paint Saddam as a "nice guy" in that interview, that I can see. What Cheney does is highlight the reasons why deposing Saddam was a bad decision, even given his clear danger.

What people who are trying to defend this speech, Rove included, fail to see is right before everyone's eyes. No one disputes that the calculation of danger Saddam posed in 2003 was different from the calculation in 1994. No one even disputes that 9/11 might very well have changed Cheney's call that deposing Saddam was the wrong move.

But what 9/11 cannot and did not change was the detailed explanation Cheney gave for his reasoning. It couldn't change the "quagmire" that Cheney saw clearly back in 1994. It couldn't change the danger of factional forces in Iraq splitting it apart into a 3-way civil war. 9/11 didn't change ANY of the reasons Cheney used to justify the decision to back off Saddam in Gulf War I.

No one is suggesting that this tape proves the case for war was bad. This tape doesn't address the danger Saddam posed in 2003, nor does it address the specific case made to support the war. Instead, what the tape shows is Cheney CLEARLY predicting the situation we have in Iraq today upon deposing Saddam.

The question being asked about it isn't "Why did you invade Iraq in 2003 when you clearly thought it was a bad idea in 1994?" The answer to that is simply "because 9//1 changed the calculation about how much danger Saddam really was" and thats a valid answer. The question being asked about this tape is "Why wasn't the 'quagmire' discussed with the American people in 2002, instead of Cheney's prediction then that the war would be over in weeks rather than months?"

Rove ignored the question being asked. No one is interested in the question of why Cheney changed his mind about how dangerous Saddam was after 9/11 ... the answer to that is obvious and valid. What I wonder after hearing the tape is why he ignored his own advice about the quagmire that would result from deposing Saddam? Why did he and his colleagues repeatedly describe the war as something that would be accomplished with minimal effort, in weeks rather than months, when Cheney himself predicted far more difficulties in 1994? Why did he fail, in 2002, to plan for the contingencies that he himself predicted in 1994? The real question here isn't about why Saddam might suddenly be more dangerous, its why Cheney suddenly forgot his own very prescient warnings and advice about the region from 1994.

...kill the innocent for one purpose and that is to gain control of the Middle East and to use the leverage of oil to bring down the West, and to attack us again.

Two. Two purposes. Gain control of the Middle East, and leverage oil, and attack us -- Ok. Three. Three purposes. Gain control, leverage oil, attack again, and an almost fanatical devotion to Bush's re-election --

Wait, that's us, not them. Start again. Amongst their purposes are such diverse elements as: ...

People became so frightened and bewildered after 9/11 that Rove's brand of hokum actually made sense and they found it comforting. It's amazing to read that now and see what nonsense it really is, and then realize how many people bought into it so thoroughly.

Rove's answer to his Rapping Buddy, Gregory, on MTP, when asked about Cheney's analysis of what would happen if we went to Baghdad and ousted Saddam was that '9/11 changed everything.'

If Gregory was any kind of journalist he would have said '9/11 didn't change Cheney's analysis of the consequences of overthrowing Saddam, Cheney was right'.

Gregory should have continued; 'So, why didn't the Bush administration plan for the consequences of overthrowing Saddam, consequences which were correct as we can readily see?'

Rove knows very well that the one sentence he can still utter that will be accepted uncritically by even his staunchest opponents are those four sweet words: "nine eleven changed everything." He also knows well that truth makes excellent sheep's clothing for lies.

The truth is, of course, that Americans were all deeply shocked by the World Trade Center attacks, and so was the rest of the world. But what actually changed in the world as the result of the attacks?

The world economy continued its retrenchment in the face of a recession which had already been underway for 2 years by late 2001. Regional challengers to American geopolitical hegemony had been spurred on by Bush's reckless hostility toward the world community since before he took office.

There were some new developments, of course. Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban and al Quaeda proper destroyed, though the country has since become much the same power vacuum it once was. Iraq no longer exists, effectively, and Iran and North Korea have become much more powerful and difficult to deal with. But all of these things happened as the direct result of American actions taken, we felt, because "nine eleven changed everything." And come hell or high water, it seems, we're going to make that statement come true if it kills us. Literally.

And that's the lie in truth's clothing: it's we Americans who changed, for the worse, because the World Trade Center attacks made us as a people desperate and scared. As Bill Clinton once put it (more or less), "When people are scared, they'll always choose a leader who's strong and wrong over someone who's right, but weak."

So when people, including Karl Rove, say "nine eleven changed everything," what they mean is that fear is courage, and ignorance is strength.