Times Versus Reality

The New York Times seems to think it's a big deal that statements made by a guy while a prisoner in Egypt connecting Iraq and Al Qaeda were false. They claim the Bush administration based its intelligence pre-war on the faulty information.

Huh?

1) Any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda were, at best, a very small part of the argument for war. In fact, when Congress voted to give the President the power to make his move, it wasn't based on the connection.

2) Some say the connection was made in the minds of the public. If it was, it was mostly accomplished pre-Bush. Looking at the statements Clinton and the Democrats made in the 1990s against Iraq (most of them quite correct), it's understandable Americans looked to Iraq immediately after 9/11. Bush didn't need to (nor did he) make a case for the connection.

3) Since the war, we have, in fact, found that they were many connections between Iraq and terrorism, and Iraq and Al Qaeda. The only question left is how important are these connections (and how much benefit of the doubt do you want to give to Saddam Hussein). Unfortunately, anti-war groups seem to have frozen their intelligence a few years ago and are not accepting any new information these days.

So, here's a story that casts doubt on a small part of an unimportant argument, and one that ultimately leads us in the wrong direction. Nevetheless, thanks for keeping us informed.