The theory that there was substantial and well-documented collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iraq (not just the occasional meeting, which means nothing) requires an answer to one key question:
"Why has Pres. Bush not revealed the evidence and given his explicit backing to this theory?"
If the theory is correct, Pres. Bush must have some very good reason for not giving the connection his imprimatur, since on its face he would greatly benefit politically from doing so.
[Of course, it's possible that the theory is false, or at least unproven, in which case there's nothing to explain with regard to the Bush administration's lack of forthrightness on the issue. But if the theory is true, then the position of the Bush administration is a very interesting question.]
Well the obvious reason would be
that it would be much more politically opportune
to reveal all this just before the election.
This is what Loftus maintains
but I have my doubts
we have heard such stuff before
that there would be revelations
just before the invasion
(the meetings with Atta, etc).
"Why has Pres. Bush not revealed the evidence and given his explicit backing to this theory?"
Please see the following post for a rather plausible response to your question:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1143347/posts?page=72#72