Remind me again who’s using ‘revisionist’ history?

Of all the lies (or exaggerations, or fabrications, or mistakes, take your pick) that the administration used in the build up towards war in Iraq, the implication that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear threat was among the worst.

To be sure, the administration was usually cautious when throwing around the word “nuclear,” preferring to focus on Iraq’s alleged (and still missing) stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.

Yet the administration, in its drive to scare the heck out of everyone, warned us that Hussein may have the one weapon we couldn’t allow him to have.

Consider, for example, Bush’s comments on Sept. 7, 2002. At a joint appearance with Tony Blair, Bush told reporters, “I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], that they were six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”

Pretty persuasive, right? Reading between Bush’s garbled syntax, it sounded like he was saying Iraq had the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon within six months.

This was obviously an attempt to portray Iraq as incredibly dangerous. If what Bush was saying was true, it would mean that Hussein was indeed a near-immediate threat and that a war to “disarm” his regime was justifiable.

Bush’s claim, however, was false (a lie? an error? Oh, never mind). The truth is that the IAEA said Iraq was six to 24 months from developing a nuclear weapon in 1991 before the first Gulf War, not in 1998 as Bush said. In attempting to correct the falsehood, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said Bush was actually talking about a different IAEA report, which turned out not to exist.

With this in mind, I found it interesting to see that Daily Kos mentioned a Defense Department briefing yesterday at which Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a bold claim.

“I don’t know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons,” Rumsfeld said.

This was actually the second time Rumsfeld has said this. At a May 14 Senate hearing, Rumsfeld said, “I don’t believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.”

So, is Rumsfeld telling the truth? No.

Bush was careful on this point before the war, saying things such as as Iraq “is seeking nuclear weapons” and Hussein “is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”

But while Bush may have never come right out and said Iraq “has” nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said that no one “in any government or any intelligence agency” made such a comment. What about Vice President Cheney?

On March 16, just two months before the invasion began, Cheney was on Meet the Press and laid it all on the line (which I found via Billmon).

“Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute,” Cheney said. “We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

Notice the language. While Bush said Iraq “seeks” nuclear weapons, Cheney said Iraq “has” them.

Doesn’t this flatly contradict Rumsfeld’s comment at yesterday’s Defense briefing? You bet it does. Will the press probably let the administration get away with yet another falsehood? Sadly, yes.