The headline of this AP story is "Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq".

First they quote Bush on the campaign trail:

[Bush] stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today."

Then the story says:

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Well, he doesn't say, "And I would prefer things the way they were." But that's certainly the implication, isn't it? Isn't it fairly safe to interpret that Kerry would have preferred keeping Saddam in his box to "a chaos that has left America less secure". I mean, if it's "chaos", and it has made us less secure, how is it preferable to the previous conditions?

I don't think this is a twisting of Kerry's words at all. Sounds like a pretty fair interpretation, don't you think?