Glad you're here to keep me straight. :9: But that article does not support your contention. There was a long history of ties between the two, as was detailed in the 9-11 report. But no operational link, no 9-11 link. No one in the administration made that allegation. You keep wanting to inspect the individual parts of the puzzle(in hindsight) when decision makers at the time were looking at the puzzle as a whole, in the wake of a colossal intelligence failure which lead to 9-11. They did not want to be caught with their pants down, again. Now, in my book, once a decision to go to war is made, I expect my leaders to whip up support. There is a difference between that and deliberately lying. Since the war began, there has been precious little "whipping up," which has lead to some of the erosion of support for the war.