Now Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has joined George W. Bush's campaign to rewrite the history of the lead-up to the Iraq War. One of the proven tactics of the Bush administration is to roll out as many administration officials as possible to keep telling the same lies and doling out the same misleading information because they know well that Americans will believe ANYTHING if they hear it long enough.

Rumsfeld and Bush are trying to demonstrate that because Democrats said bad things about Saddam Hussein, that that was de facto support for going to war.

Let me reiterate.

First, NO ONE with any common sense was EVER going to say something GOOD about Saddam Hussein. He was not a good man. But there is a difference between SAYING he's a bad man and invading the country on incomplete and false intelligence data.

Second, NO ONE prior to George W. Bush invaded Iraq in a full-scale war with the purpose of overthrowing his government and installing a sympathetic regime. It is one thing to recognize a problem, but it is somethig else again to start a full-fledged war over it.

The purpose of diplomacy is to contain problems and resolve them as peacefully as possible. The discrete use of limited force to maintain the status quo without inciting a war is a political talent that no one in the Bush administration apparently has. And to cover up that deficiency, they are trying to say that anyone who criticized Saddam Hussein in the past somehow shares responsibility with the Bush administration for going to war. I guess it's the classic kindergarten excuse of "It's not my fault. They told me to do it!"