Over at cnn.com, in an article about the phony Rove/Plame brouhaha:

"The controversy dates back to the furious debate over the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the claims that Baghdad was harboring a nuclear weapons program in violation of U.N. sanctions."

I'll take that adjective, "furious", as an admission that the press/body politic/public sphere did not roll over and play dead for Bush's Iraq agenda, as is so often alleged nowadays. The assertion is usually of a piece with the claim of goal-post shifting, an obvious work of transference if there ever were one.

And now back to listening to Napalm Death and engaging in corporate finance.