We can continue to analyze Bush's speech, can't we?

Of course, if we're fighting a war and the original reason has evaporated, we want to believe we have another reason. Therefore, it makes sense that people want to believe that "the war on terror" being fought in Iraq stems from Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11-- even though no authoritative source (i.e. the FBI, the CIA) will substantiate any connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Still, if your troops are at war and your president and commander-in-chief keeps using the phrase "September 11" while talking about Iraq, you want to believe that the enemy in that war had something to do with September 11. That makes sense emotionally, even logically.

So I can sit through some of the arguments that are claiming that it is a "Big Lie" to say that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Indeed, if Saddam Hussein was, at times, cozy with some of the same people who attacked us, then it is not entirely incorrect to say that he had some connection. But the degree to which that connection is at all meaningful is important to examine critically when our president is sending our troops into battle.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. However, intelligent people, liberal Democrats included (I saw man-on-the-street interviews with people in the SF Bay Area on CBS news), want to believe that there may be a connection. To paraphrase one reasonable looking man, yes, there possibly could be a connection; we may find out that there is. This attitude is not outrageous or stupid. For many, this hypothesis will be correct until evidence emerges that disproves it. Of course, Americans want to believe there is a connection. Our president keeps suggesting that there is. Now that we're there, and our young men and women are dying as they work to help a unstable region and the tragic consequences that have fallen upon its people, we want to have a reason for being there.

Just because we want it, however, does not make it true.

And if pundits and presidents keep playing with semantics in order to justify a war that has attracted more terrorists and rallied them to the cause of killing innocents, then we have a responsibility to look at words critically and consider the implications of believing in half-truths. Saddam Hussein did not attack the U.S. He was incapable of doing so, and he was not involved with those who did. Furthermore, he had no intentions of attacking the U.S., again, because he had no way of doing so. If we believe that Saddam Hussein did attack the U.S. on 9/11, then we are in danger of believing anything.