This one is revealing. It’s from Eric Schmitt’s account of Paul Wolfowitz’s appearance at the New School. Here’s the passage:
When pressed by Mr. Goldberg and audience members, some of these justifications seemed less certain. “Iraq did have contacts with Al Qaeda,” Mr. Wolfowitz insisted, momentarily silencing the audience with an accusation even President Bush now says is unsubstantiated. He added, “We don’t know how clear they were.”
Notice the condescension. Now notice the inaccuracy. President Bush has never said that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda. This is the new anti-war shibboleth, loyally parroted by Schmitt as if it were true. (It’s the same as the notion that the president once claimed that the threat from Iraq was imminent. He didn’t. But in the anti-war mind, he must have.) All the president conceded was that there was no hard evidence of Saddam’s connection to 9/11. (There is, of course, much hard evidence that Saddam was involved in the first WTC attack.) Even the BBC has conceded as much. Nothing Wolfowitz is reported to have said conflicted with this. Now: an interesting test of Keller’s New York Times. Will they run a correction of their reporter’s egregious anti-war bias? (Belgravia Despatch beat me to the punch on this one.)
The Dish 