Last night Vice President Cheney offered what might be described as the Big Bang justification for pre-emptive war:

The effort that we’ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

That is, if we have enough bad people in the same area as some bad weapons, we are justified in attacking it, for inevitably this mixture will result in an al Qaeda attack upon America*.
Unfortunately a minor obstacle has arisen in applying this formula to Iraq, namely that there were no bad weapons in Iraq:

Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.
Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

So after the smoke has cleared–well, I guess Iraq is still smoking–we see that the UN sanction scheme and inspections were effectively weakening Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability. Yet Bush cut this short so he could invade Iraq to discover . . . that there were no weapons.
I don’t know why Kerry has had such a hard time addressing this, but in Friday’s debate he really needs to hammer home how Bush blundered by arbitrarily cutting short the inspections process so he could rush to war. We’ve spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in an effort which hasn’t made America any safer.
*Rule not valid in North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan.

I agree with the general sentiment that last night’s debate was a “tie.” At least in the sense that I don’t think it swayed very many voters in one direction in the other. And speaking of the “swayable” voters, can the news networks quit showing these panels of “undecided”–i.e., clueless–voters? Does anyone learn anything from these people? I think it would nearly as informative to show me standing in the store muttering, “Now which pair of socks should I buy?”
At any rate, a number of bloggers have already noted some of the difficulties Cheney had with the truth. And even right-leaning TV talking heads had a hard time repeating this with a straight face:

CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there’s clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.

What was Cheney’s point in trying to move the goal posts and include Iraqis in the coalition to liberate themselves? Does he think Americans are going to be fooled on how many U.S. casualties there have been? The media has at least gotten that much correct.

Our economy is strong and growing stronger:

Layoff announcements by U.S. companies surged 45 percent in September to nearly 108,000, the highest number of planned job cuts since January, outplacement firm Challenger Grey & Christmas said Tuesday.
Job reduction announcements are up 41 percent from September 2003, while year-to-date job cuts are down 17 percent from 2003’s pace, Challenger said. The total of 107,863 announced layoffs for the month was not seasonally adjusted, the firm said.
“The return to six-figure job-cut levels paints a grim picture for ongoing economic growth, as such activity is generally considered a measure of how companies view future business conditions,” John Challenger, chairman of the firm, said in a written statement.
. . .
Challenger also said corporations announced 16,166 job openings in September, the lowest since Challenger began tracking hiring announcements in May.

I can think of a few more employees who should be terminated next month.

Unless, of course, it moves itself into irrelevancy:

Poland may reduce its commitment of forces to the war in Iraq by 40 percent by January 2005 and have all its troops out by the end of that year, Polish officials said Monday.
Polish President Aleksander Kwasnieswski said a withdrawal is in the discussion stage but could not be finalized until after Iraqi elections scheduled for January.

Can Poland be kicked out of “New Europe” and rejoin “Old Europe”?

Yeah, we already knew this:

“CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists“

A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House’s claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there’s no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The CIA review, which U.S. officials said Monday was requested some months ago by Vice President Dick Cheney, is the latest assessment that calls into question one of President Bush’s key justifications for last year’s U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

“Ex-U.S. Governor of Iraq Criticizes Troop Levels“

The U.S. intervention in Iraq was hampered early on by a lack of adequate forces and efforts to contain looting after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, according to the former U.S. administrator in Iraq.
“We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,” Paul Bremer said in a speech reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday. “We never had enough troops on the ground.”
Bremer’s comments echoed charges by administration critics who argue that the U.S. government failed to plan adequately to maintain security in post-war Iraq, the newspaper said.

Do you think Vice President Dick Cheney will be incorporating any of this “new” information into his debate preparation? I vote no.