1) Bush and Cheney advocated invading Iraq on intelligence that Iraq was developing WMDs.
2) The intel was irrefutably proven to be wrong. Bush and Cheney stood fast behind their position on the war anyway.
3) The recent US weapons inspector's report (published this week) proves conclusively there was only the tattered remnants of a WMD program in Iraq; the report concludes that their WMD program was stronger in 1991 than it was when we invaded the country in 2002.
4) In light of this overwhelming evidence (which they haven't refuted to date) against their claims, Cheney said today - that's October 7, 2004 - in a town hall meeting in Miami the this report justifies (!!!!) rather than undermines Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Why? Well, here's Cheney's logic: although Iraq clearly was no threat to the world, they were focused on getting export sanctions lifted, and as soon as they were, he'd've resumed his WMD program.
And therefore (I'm not making this up -- this IS Cheney's logic), we needed to invade Iraq because even though they didn't have a WMD program, they would've started one as soon as the UN inspectors determined he didn't have one, because once they determined Iraq didn't have a WMD program e-e-everyone would be feel safe and they could therefore start a WMD program again.
NOW let's put that in perspective: it was necessary to spend $200B, lose 1100 American Special Forces' lives (and continue to lose 30 or more per month with increasing, not decreasing casualties), kill/maim 10,000 or more Iraqi civilians, separate military members families from their families, and for America to lose favor in the world for this pseudologic. In so doing, a president who mathematically lost his election and who faced significant opposition at home and abroad to this action went ahead anyway and sacrificed those precious resources on his personal whim.
... How's that working for ya?