More recommended reading


In Bush’s telling of the story, it all fits together. The war on terror gives meaning to the battle of Iraq. And the battle of Iraq demonstrates tangible success in the war on terror.

Except it doesn’t. The two stories — Iraq and al-Qaida, the battle and the war — have never really meshed. Bush keeps saying they’re the same thing. But saying doesn’t make it so.

Remember Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction — the ones whose concealment justified the invasion of Iraq? A week ago, the Washington Post reported that 38 days after entering Iraq, the United States had “yet to find weapons of mass destruction at any of the locations that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited in his key presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February.” We hadn’t even “produced Iraqi scientists with evidence about them.” The only thing Bush said we had learned from interrogating Saddam’s scientists was that “perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some.”

What about Saddam’s links to terror? Bush repeated Thursday that the Iraq war had “removed an ally of al-Qaida.” Really? According to the Post, U.S. officials “have not turned up anything to support Powell’s claim to the Security Council that ‘nearly two dozen’ al Qaeda terrorists lived in and operated from Baghdad.” A Los Angeles Times investigation of the al-Qaida affiliate touted by Powell found “no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad” and concluded that the group lacked “the capability to muster a serious threat beyond its mountain borders.” Saddam didn’t even “control the region where the [group’s] camps were located.”

What does Bush have to say about the absence of evidence on these two points? “This much is certain,” he observed in his victory address. “No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.”

Well, that’s true. No terrorist network will get weapons from Pat Moynihan, either. That doesn’t make his death essential to the war on terror.