Revisionist Historians
Tom Tomorrow has an interesting post about the variety of spin excreting from the right wing in reaction to Paul O'Neill's claim that the Bushies were discussing invading Iraq from the very start of their misadministration. AWol yesterday seemed to take two different approaches. First, we were always for regime change, just like Clinton:

The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change.

But then it's the old "9/11 changed everything" line:

And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with desert badger or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then all of a sudden September the 11th hit.

As TT points out, back in January aWol was pushing the second line:

Actually, prior to September the 11th, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction [regimen] that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, when he was running for president, Bush was against all of this nonsense:

If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that. -- From aWol's debate with Al Gore, October 3, 2000.

So there you have it. October 3, 2000. The last time George W. Bush was right on anything. Because we've sure got a serious problem now.