There must be a Compulsive Delusional Revisionism gene. And Liz Cheney seems to have inherited it. On Thursday, she denied all those scurrilous allegations that Dick Cheney ever pushed a non-existent connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

MSNBC‘s Andrea Mitchell asked Liz Cheney whether her daddy’s statement at the National Press Club on June 1 that “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence to confirm, that (Saddam Hussein) was involved in 9/11″ represented an evolution from Cheney’s prior statements and thinking. “Oh, no!” said Lizzie:

LIZ CHENEY: No, this is something he has actually said for many years. There was a report in the aftermath of 9/11 that came from the CIA that Mohammad Atta had met in Prague –

MITCHELL: It was quickly discredited!

LIZ CHENEY: Well, let me finish. So, there was a report, and when the report was outstanding, you had a number of people in the administration publicly talking about the fact that there could have been a connection in terms of the Mohammad Atta meeting. Once it became clear that the report didn’t hold up, he and others in the administration were out publicly saying that and there’s been a real attempt in my view to blur the distinction. He has not said that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Lizzie, here’s what dear daddy said back on December 9, 2001:

Russert: Do you still believe there’s no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

Cheney: Well, what we now have that’s developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that–it’s been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don’t know at this point, but that’s clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

And here’s what dear daddy was saying on September 8, 2002, well after it became clear that the Mohammad Atta report didn’t hold up:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We’ve seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn’t he there, again, it’s the intelligence business.

Mr. RUSSERT: What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: It’s credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it’s unconfirmed at this point. We’ve got…

How did dear Lizzie put it? “Once it became clear that the report didn’t hold up, he and others in the administration were out publicly saying that”? Really? Cross your heart and hope to fade away forever from my TV?

Or how about this interview with the Rocky Mountain News on January 9, 2004:

On the separate issue, on the 9/11 question, we’ve never had confirmation one way or another. We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of ’01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been — we’ve never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11.

How’s that for publicly saying that the reports of the Mohammad Atta Prague meeting didn’t hold up?

But here’s Prick Cheney at the top of his game, at his mendacious best, on June 17, 2004:

BORGER: Well, let’s get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, “pretty well confirmed.”

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: I never said that.

BORGER: I think that is…

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don’t know.

BORGER: Well, this report says it didn’t happen.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No, this report says they haven’t found any evidence.

BORGER: That it happened.

Vice Pres. CHENEY: Right.

BORGER: But you haven’t found the evidence that it happened either, have you?

Vice Pres. CHENEY: No. All we have is that one report from the Czechs. We just don’t know.