Finally

According to the AmSpec Blog, there is finally a fair attempt at assessing the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

As with the AmSpec Blog, I don't agree with all of the conclusions made. Primarily under the heading "Iraq and Al Qaeda" is the following entry:

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE SAID

President Bush: "... Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.... Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases."

WHAT WE KNOW TODAY

Two government investigative reports indicate that Al Qaeda and Iraq had long-running if sporadic contacts. Several of the prewar intel conclusions likely are true. But the high-ranking Al Qaeda detainee who said Iraq trained Al Qaeda in bombmaking, poisons and gases later recanted.

THE VERDICT

No compelling evidence ties Iraq to Sept. 11, 2001, as the White House implied. Nor is there proof linking Al Qaeda in a significant way to the final years of Hussein's regime. By stripping its rhetoric of the ambiguity present in the intel data, the White House exaggerated this argument for war

I hardly agree that the White House "implied" that there was evidence for tying Iraq to 9/11. They have made statements refuting that. The implication - as well as what was clearly said - is that there was a link between Iraq (Saddam) and Al Qaeda. That does not mean Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. What it does mean is that there was active support for the terrorist group and its aims. Now, one may say that that is tantamount to saying that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but I completely disagree. I think it means that Saddam had the greater interests of Al Qaeda in common - the eradication of Israel and by association the United States. 9/11 being specifically part of that commonality is not specified nor implied.