Bush administration officials have drafted a rule that would significantly narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act, stripping many wetlands and streams of federal pollution controls and making them available to being filled for commercial development. ...

If implemented, the change would represent one of the most consequential of the actions the Bush administration has taken to ease environmental regulations.

"It would dramatically cut back the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction," said the official who provided the document on the condition that neither he nor his agency be identified. "It would eliminate protections for ephemeral streams, which could be in the millions of miles of streams, particularly out West where many streams do not flow all year long."

Julie Sibbing, a wetlands policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation, said, "It's like writing off the entire Southwest from the Clean Water Act, where water is more precious than in any other region of the country. Up to 80% to 90% of streams in the Southwest would not fall under the Clean Water Act if this rule were to go forward."

But here the president isn’t ruling out an “imminent threat,” but rather just bending the concept out of all recognition by arguing that the threat will be “imminent” only when we get a formal warning from the potential attackers. And that’s just more of the same rhetorical gobbledygook and obfuscation.

Critics like Sullivan want to put the onus on Democrats to untangle these silly word games if they want to talk about what we all know happened in the run-up to the war.

But that’s just not how it works. Just as they can’t undo what they did, the White House and its supporters can’t undo what they said.

There’s no use denying it. It was only a year ago. We were there. We remember.