“We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding.”

Exactly what in the staff report supports this contention of Bush’s?

2) I bumped into a neighbor walking down the street yesterday. We made contact. Did that establish a “tie” between us? Not on your life. So I guess the LAT headline is just fine.

3) Bush’s notion of “terrorist connections” is demonstrably at odds with the staff report. While the draft report claims there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the adjective “terrorist” only makes sense if the contacts between them led to the furtherance of some terrorist project. But the staff report says there is no evidence of collaboration between Saddam’s Iraq and Al Qaeda.

a) Yes
b) No

2) So your contention is that the numerous AQ/Iraq connections described in the public statements of the co-chairs of the commission are accidental connections? We can assume Farouk Hijazi said: “Whoops! Sorry to have accidentally bumped into you, Mr. bin Laden!”

3) Yeah, you’re probably right. Al Qaeda meetings with Iraqi officials likely had nothing to do with terrorism. Those Al Qaeda guys had their fingers in so many different pies . . .

My point is that the L.A. Times’s exclusion of the statements of the co-chairs, which clarify that the staff report focuses on collaboration on attacks against the United States, is inexcusable. It’s unfair for the Times and other media outlets to seize on one sentence in the staff report (regarding a “collaborative relationship”), and fail to report that the co-chairs (and other commissioners) have repeatedly indicated that sentence is not intended to be read as broadly as the media has read it.

For the record, I was never enamored of the “Saddam is connected to Al Qaeda” rationale for invading Iraq; I was reluctantly persuaded that Saddam’s violations of UN resolutions was the legal basis. My point is not that the AQ/Iraq ties were substantial enough to justify a war. My point is that the media should not lie, by omission or otherwise.

You’re yet another example of someone who believes what they want to believe despite the facts. Soldier on in ignorance my friend, crack a beer and let Fox entertain you with their insipid little fictions.

If you can keep your eye on the ball, do you think it was legitimate for the Times not to publish quotes from the co-chairs of the commission that directly contradicted the thesis of their article?