2. The Washington Post has covered this story and has indicated that Vanity Fair twisted Wolfowitz's words and added their own interpretation.
3. I realize that those who are looking for anything to bash Bush are desperate, but in this case, since there is solid evidence of Wolfowitz being misquoted, you are just going to have to admit you were wrong.
Really? I suggest you read the SOTU from this year. He makes it quite clear it is the issue. He doesn't say a coalition will attack Iraq unless they turn to a democracy, he doesn't say the coalition will attack Iraq over human rights violations, however he does say unless Iraq disarms the coalition would attack Iraq.
2. The Washington Post has covered this story and has indicated that Vanity Fair twisted Wolfowitz's words and added their own interpretation.
Like the boys over at New American Century (of which our current foreign policy is based considering half the administration was part of it back in the 90s) have never done any twisting of words. Remember, they're politicians, just like the Democrats.
3. I realize that those who are looking for anything to bash Bush are desperate, but in this case, since there is solid evidence of Wolfowitz being misquoted, you are just going to have to admit you were wrong.
No what I see is someone who is trying to change their story because the main line that has been yelled from the top of every mountain for the last 8 months is turning out to be no more than wishful thinking