A lot of folks were asserting that Iraq was the most likely culprit. Problem is, they never came out and said they were wrong, because the untrue belief was so darned convenient.

I think when we pinned it on bin Laden and tore Afghanistan a new one, most people got a clue as to who was the prime culprit. I don't know why the survey says what it says. I think the poll experts have it right, but there's no issue then, right? If Bush can convince people of things this easily, why are his approval ratings dropping? Can he only cloud men's minds on Iraq?

While this keeps getting forgotten, there was credible intelligence at one time that some of al Qaeda trained in Iraq. The Salman Pak issue was credible enough at one time to rate a report from Frontline sometime in 2001, and it was considered an issue by the CIA and others. Defectors spoke of what was done there, and reconnaissance photos matched what they had described in their maps.

No hard evidence of terror training was found (or made public) when Salman Pak was captured (you were expecting a dropped wallet?), but the cover story (anti-terror training) was a bit thin, too.

Of course, the position of the antiwar movement now is that defectors who talk of terrorists and WMD had an agenda, so must be lying, while defectors and ex-Baathists who say there were no WMD or terror links are telling the truth. No agenda there, right?

So without hard evidence, there it sits. But it looked real enough a year or so ago.

And Bush didn't lie.

Sorry. You can go on for days about how he "inferred" things or allowed people to come to false conclusions by juxtaposing phrases or using misleading terms. Hard to prove, but this were in fact a crime, there wouldn't be a politician left in the District of Columbia outside a jail. I could go on for days about Democrats and tax issues, for example.