just a small clarification

The New York Times, 17 June:

The bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks further called into question on Wednesday one of President Bush's rationales for the war with Iraq, and again put him on the defensive over an issue the White House was once confident would be a political plus.

In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times editorial, 17 June:

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

The New York Times, 20 June:

The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission reiterated today that they did not see any evidence of a collaborative relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and that this position did not differ from the view of the Bush administration.

The commission's chairman, Thomas H. Kean, and its vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, appeared on the ABC News program “This Week” as two other commission members were interviewed on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” about initial findings of the commission. Its final report is scheduled to be released next month. […]

Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton appeared to suggest that any differences over the issue were largely semantic.

“We have concluded there is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States,” Mr. Kean said. “What we do say, however, is there were contacts.”

Mr. Hamilton said he had looked at the statements “quite carefully” from the administration. “They are not claiming there was a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda with regard to the attacks on the United States,” he said.

He later added that with regard to the administration's core statements, “I don't think there is a difference of opinion with regard to those statements.”

Number of corrections from The New York Times between 16 June and 20 June containing the words “Iraq” and “Qaeda”:

Zero.

But you probably guessed that already.

Once again, with feeling: Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry.

UPDATE. For a very different assessment of the credibility of evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda, go here and here and here.

Credible is not the same as conclusive. Still, the first link above is particularly noteworthy, as it describes just how credible the evidence of a connection was once regarded by both the media and the Administration. The Clinton Administration, that is.