FROM THE 9/11 COMMISSION: “The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks found ‘no credible evidence’ of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States, contradicting President Bush’s assertion that such a connection was among the reasons it was necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.”

I’d be interested in seeing a comparison between this report and Stephen Hayes’ book.

UPDATE: Steven Antler emails:

Please, Glenn, issue a call to the blogosphere to find out who were the two Bin Laden “senior associates” cited as denying the Iraq/Bin Laden connection. If the statement appearedin the middle of a long anti-Bush rant modeled after those originating from the US left, it is vital this news get out ASAP.

Let’s hear it. Cody Hatch is already skeptical:

I assume that the Sept. 11th Commission has access to documents that I do not, and that they have access to people and testimony that I do not, but where is the “credible evidence” that nothing came from these meetings? Did Sudan, Iran, and Afghanistan send a senior intelligence official to meet with bin Laden, as Iraq did? How many nations sent official representatives in response to requests by bin Laden for meetings?

Sorry if I sound a bit skeptical of the panel’s report, but it seems to me that either they have solid non-public evidence that nothing resulted from the meetings between Iraqi representatives and al Qaeda, or they are dismissing them for lack of solid evidence that something did result from the meetings. If they’re dismissing the meetings out-of-hand, that’s a major gap in their report, and should be addressed. If they have non-public evidence demonstrating that nothing resulted from the meetings, that information should be made public or the panel should say that they have classified information demonstrating that nothing resulted from Iraq’s meetings with al Qaeda.

Sorry, but after the panel’s antics and grand-standing over the past few months, I can’t simply take their word for it.

Their behavior to date certainly hasn’t been credibility-enhancing. Meanwhile Karl Bade emails that the Commission is being disingenuous:

The key phrase is “in attacks against the United States.” It seems to me that the Bush Administration has been very careful to state that it did not believe there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, even though Czech intell stands by its report on the meeting between Atta and an Iraqi agent. This apparent mischaracterization of the Administration’s position adds to the list of reasons to doubt the Commission’s judgment as to what is “credible” evidence in the first instance.

And here’s another writer noting that the report is being given an anti-Bush spin:

So. The Bush administration said Iraq and al-Qaida had contacts. The 9-11 commission says the same thing. The Bush administration hasn’t said Iraq aided al-Qaida in any of its attacks. The 9-11 commision says there is no evidence that Iraq aided al-Qaida in any of its attacks. According to the Washington Post, this is “contradiction”. Apparently somebody needs to sit the reporters and editors of the Washington Post down for a remedial logic course.

Stay tuned.

ANOTHER UPDATE: David Gerstman notes a chronological error in the report. Robert Racansky, on the other hand, wonders if the Commission read the U.S. Government’s 1998 indictment against Osama bin Laden, which said: “In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” Or did that turn out to be wrong? (There’s this report, too.)

And Q&0 has helpfully outlined the talking points for both sides from the report.

STILL MORE: The Washington Post has apparently been editing its story this afternoon in response to criticisms, though it hasn’t so indicated on the page.

MORE STILL: Tacitus has more on how this story is being misreported.

PEJMAN YOUSEFZADEH: “It is more than a little shocking that some Berkeley law students don’t seem to understand the function of a legal research memo.”

THERE’S A NEW MICHAEL MOORE FILM TRAILER out that’s worth your attention. It goes well with this book.

EUGENE VOLOKH PROVIDES ADVICE on how to be sexy.

SMOKING-GUN MEMO from the Council of Economic Advisors predicts an “inflation time bomb.” Read the whole thing. Er, or as much as you can, anyway.

STEVE STURM says that I’m wrong to oppose torture, and compares me to Mike Dukakis.

UPDATE: At least he didn’t subject me to an animated cartoon caricature, as this long, and actually rather thoughtful post (with many disturbing photos) does to Alan Dershowitz.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Torture as a bipartisan phenomenon.

A WHILE BACK, I speculated that John Kerry, if he wins, might be like Jimmy Carter — elected by a constituency motivated by dislike of the incumbent, but without any mandate or political base once in office. Reading Howard Kurtz today, on how nobody’s very excited about Kerry, makes me think I’m right.

Could America afford another Carter Presidency right now? I’m not as down on Carter as Steven Hayward is, but I think it would be a bad thing.

UPDATE: Call me crazy, but I don’t think this slogan does the trick.

UNSCAM UPDATE:

WASHINGTON — The United Nations was rocked by a new scandal yesterday when reports surfaced that the diplomat in charge of rooting out corruption in the world body is himself facing allegiations about unethical conduct.

Fox News reported yesterday that Dileep Nair, the undersecretary general in charge of the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight, has been accused of demanding kickbacks and sexual favors in return for promotions inside his office. Nair, a native of Singapore, also has been accused of attempting to thwart the probe into the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, although his role in that probe remains unclear

Sources told The Post the allegations against Nair stem from complaints from employees inside the United Nations that have reached the employees union as well embattled U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. . . .

The allegations that the man in charge of ethics enforcement is himself facing charges come at a time when the United Nations is facing the gravest test of its credibility in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal.

It also comes a day after the United Nations published a shocking survey in which a majority of the U.N. staff said they fear reprisals from their bosses if they step forward with information about wrongdoing.

It just gets worse. Considering the magnitude and pervasive nature of these corruption problems, though, it’s getting surprisingly little attention.

QUITE A FEW PEOPLE ARE blogging from the Southern Baptist Convention. Follow the link for a list.

OPERATION SHOE FLY: Sgt. Hook wants your help getting shoes to Afghan children.

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER: My TechCentralStation column for tomorrow is up.

THERE’S A NEW Michael Moore book out. From the publisher’s blurb: “Postwar documentarians gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary, and Moore initiated a third genre, the crockumentary.” More background here.

I WONDER WHAT MICHELLE MALKIN has to say about Nicole Kidman. $72 million?

MORE ON MEDIA SPIN and the European elections.

UPDATE: Some thoughts on the German elections, here.

THE MANCHURIAN HILLARY/STREEP? Via Ann Althouse.

HOMEBREW NANOTECHNOLOGY LABS? Yep.

THOUGHTS CAPTURED IN REAL TIME? I wrote about brain-scan mind reading a couple of weeks ago, and now here’s a report of something that’s getting kind of close.

BLOGGING TODAY’S EARTHQUAKE IN SAN DIEGO: More here from LT Smash. And from Steven Den Beste. Nothing serious.

FIRST ERIC ALTERMAN, and now Country Joe McDonald, refusing to associate with communists! (“‘Communism tends to be totalitarian, and I am not supportive of that,’ Mr. McDonald said.”) Bravo. Is this a trend?

UPDATE: But not everyone is hip to the times.

MILTON FRIEDMAN ON RONALD REAGAN: Interesting stuff from Virginia Postrel.

FOXNEWS IS REPORTING on still more UNSCAM problems at the United Nations, involving accusations against internal investigations chief Dileep Nair. (Click on the link and then click on the right to play the video). I can’t find anything more about it on the web yet.

WE REFUSE TO SAY WHETHER OUR QUOTES ARE ACCURATE:

NEW YORK (AP) — Reporters at three news organizations are resisting subpoenas issued in the trial of a lawyer charged with conspiring to support terrorists.

Prosecutors issued subpoenas to four reporters at Reuters, The New York Times and Newsday, saying they want the reporters to testify that lawyer Lynne Stewart said what they quoted her as saying in their articles. . . .

Lawyers for the reporters have argued that making the reporters testify would compromise their neutrality by forcing them to side with prosecutors.

Huh? When you quote someone, you’re putting their words in public. Refusing to stand behind your quote isn’t neutrality. And since when are reporters above the law anyway? (Emphasis added).

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh has thoughts of his own. The terms “pretty weak case” and “appalling” appear.

BERNARD GOETZ: A squirrel-rights activist?

STILL MORE REASON for Bush to pick Condi as his running mate!

Trust me, Kerry won’t respond with matching photos of Dick Gephardt.

John Edwards, maybe. . . .

UPDATE: Okay, before being sidetracked by that picture, I actually went to this article for the item about Eric Alterman threatening to sue Bill O’Reilly for suggesting that he likes Castro, which Alterman apparently regards as an unforgivable slur.

Nice to see such vigorous anti-Communism from Eric! Er, and I hope that he won’t be appearing topless any time soon. . . .

ANOTHER UPDATE: I’m behind the curve on the shirtless Gephardt story. But he doesn’t look half bad!

NOW WHAT COULD ACCOUNT FOR THIS?

At the beginning of the year, Bush’s economic policies overshadowed all other issues in news coverage. However, since April, the networks have practically abandoned coverage of his economic policy – even as the economy and labor market have shown signs of significant improvement.

Go figure.