I'm not surprised that Paul O'Neill backed off his statements. This administration is ruthless when they go after someone. And why shouldn't they be ruthless? Who's going to hold them accountable? Congress? The Supreme Court? The Liberal Media? In the interest of fairness, I will acknowledge that vicious attacks are not unique to this administration. One need look no further than James Carville during the Clinton Administration to verify that fact.

Paul O'Neill's response to the horse's head doesn't change for one second my belief that The Bush Administration completely mislead the American people, and the world, in their drive for war. That was one of my points in "a matter of priorities."

In true Republican Attack Machine fashion, the White House is making ad hominem attacks, because that's the best they can do. Not one person within the Bush Administration said, "Paul O'Neill is lying," because he's not.

In fact, another official, also present that day, has come forward to confirm Paul O'Neill's recollection of that early Bush Cabinet meeting:

President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in a book written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

Also, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and I share the same feelings about Mr. Bush's speed to investigate Mr. O'Neill, in contrast to Mr. Bush's 74 day wait to investigate the Plame leak:

"They didn't wait 24 hours in initiating an investigation on Paul O'Neill," Clark said. "They're not concerned about national security. But they're really concerned about political security. I think they've got their priorities upside down."

Democratic candidate Howard Dean echoed the criticism: "Paul O'Neill is not a threat to our national security," he said in a statement. "But the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA operative undermines a key tenet of national security and is a violation of law."

That was my second point, and I believe that it reveals a great deal about Mr. Bush's priorities, hence the entry's title.