Powerline mentioned something I hadn't heard before, which is a cliche that "news is the rough draft of history." As Powerline further pointed out, this isn't so true anymore, if it ever was. Just look at the Plame scandal that dominated the news for soweeks at a time at various points over the last year or two. Unless it turns out that George Bush himself leaked the information, this story has no importance in the long run, and will probably never be mentioned in a history textbook. It shouldn't be anyway. On the other hand there were bunches of things happening in the world that will be mentioned in history books but were virtually ignored in the mainstream media. Anytime something good happens in Iraq, it gets ignored, but in the end, when Iraq is a free and peaceful country, the textbooks will focus on the good stuff, and probably not talk much about the problems, like Bush's "lies" that weren't lies and such. The history is the war, who won it and why it happened. That Democrats and the media have decided to ignore the actual definition of the word "lie" may be news, but it's not history. At least it's not history that gives much valuable insight in to the war, except that future generations will know how adolescent many on the left acted during this period when they didn't get their way.