Oh, and there is more:
Chairman Thomas Kean, meanwhile, stressed that the staff statement released Wednesday did not represent the settled view of the whole commission: "These staff reports have come along every now and then in connection with our public hearings. These staff reports are interim documents. The commission, for instance, does not get involved, the members, in the staff reports. When we do the report itself, that will be a product of the entire commission."
He added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet."
===
So why did the Commission released half-baked conclusions, if not for political reasons?
But they are finding out that the links are apparently so extensive, they can't ignore them.
And what kind of a statement is that "there is MORE evidence that AQ had links to Pakistan and Iran, that doesn't meant, that there isn't still plenty of evidence linking Iraq and AQ.
I think they are backtracking, because the Bush administration didn't fold.
So Kerry could quote them, denounce Bush, and wind up looking like a fool?
Oh really? Then why are you bozos appearing on the media yapping about half-baked results? Not very professional.
I think they are backtracking, because the Bush administration didn't fold.
Because people are tired of hearing it and won't be bothered to read the real story?
And my money is on Ben-Vineste.
The question to ask is why a Republican chairman is such an incompetent or cowardly, to allow staffers at his commission release documents and spin directed against a Republican president?
Has Mr Kean no guts, what so ever?
Good catch. That's a very salient question indeed, one which prompted me to go examine the article. Here's what it says:
"He added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq"
He "added"? That is quite odd. Why on earth would he "add" such a thing? Doesn't that strike anyone besides you and me as odd? Think about it. He's answering a question that nobody asked him.
Nobody asked him "was AQ linked MORE to Iraq than other countries?" That was NEVER the issue, and he certainly knows it. The issue was, Was AQ linked to Iraq? And the reason this became an issue is, for the past several days we've been inundated with countless "no links between Iraq and AQ!" headlines.
So now he's called on it and his "excuse" is that some other countries have "more" links?
If a kid says "I didn't take any cookies", and his mother finds three cookies in his pockets, then the kid points at his brother and says "but he took five!", I think we all recognize that for what it is.
For Kean to think it's just fine and dandy to let the (incorrect) meme "No Links Between Iraq and AQ" settle amongst the American public, because of his evaluation that the Links were stronger with these other countries, is inexcusable. Is he interested in the truth, or in propaganda? Is he saying that this is an excusable white lie?
There were either some amount of links between AQ and Iraq, or there were not. As things stand the Commission has let the impression emanate to the susceptible public that there were not. This is simply incorrect, and even if it's true that Pakistan/Iran had "more" links, that doesn't change the fact that it's incorrect.