Get your blinders on. Dean has his.

Note
This post is NOT about Howard Dean
.........................................
I'm going to annoy Ron by using my MEJ posting privileges to link to an article at the blog of the historical revisionist in chief's web site, Dean's World. In an article which he titles (in what I can only interpret as an attempt at irony) "Iraq update", Dean once again goes on to repeat falsehoods of those still clinging to the war hawks' fantasies.

Saddam's regime clearly and absolutely had WMD programs and substantial ties to international terrorism. We had those reasons, and almost a dozen other besides, for going to Iraq. Here is a detailed, recently-updated piece worth reading, and here is an update you haven't seen much about in the news yet, but hopefully will soon.

Yes, after three years of pouring through tens of thousands of documents found in dusty basements of Saddam's pleasure palaces, investigators have found two or three documents where some low level lackey has hinted that Saddam may have considered cooperating with OBL's agents in the war on terror. As we've pointed out here in the past, OBL and Hussein clearly had one thing in common - the enemy of my enemy is maybe, kind-of, sort-of my friend. Neither was any fan of the United States. But, of course, OBL is a fanatical Muslim while Hussein had no use for people of that ilk. He was a self-centered, heretical dictator interested only in his own power and control.

Dean's fantasies are laid to rest by one of his commentors. (How he got a comment through with Dean's echo chamber comment policies is a mystery, but it's good to see.)

Here's an honest question: If, as the article at Investors Business Daily says, the claim that Saddam had no WMD "now lies in tatters", why isn't the White House out there shouting "See? We told you!" from the mountain tops? Why aren't Bush's supporters in Washington doing the same? I can see why the MSM and the rest of the left isn't saying much about it, but one would think, given the state of Bush's popularity, he'd be using this to stop the bleeding if he could. The only explanation I can come up with is that he really can't; that the case isn't as solid or clear cut as this article makes it out to be.

No comment from Dean yet, but that really says it all. The "revealing papers" are shreds, and if there was really any meat on that bone, you'd have seen Cheney crowing about it on his Sunday Meet the Press interview until the television exploded.

No matter how much evidence mounts up, the hawks will keep blaring these lies and revisionist history from the highest peaks they can manage. It's gone far beyond infuriating deception into some new realm of sad denial.