1 Uh, no. The NYT got a quote SLIGHTLY wrong, but there was absolutely NO misrepresentation. Again, you guys are missing the forrest for the trees... on purpose. Here's the mistake: "No collaborative relationship." Here's the quote from the 9/11 Report: "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." Honestly, what is the scandal here, the fact that a reporter got a quote slightly wrong, or going to war based on a lie!!! You guys are playing fast and loose with the truth while at the same time claiming as a primary strategy against Democrats and the Media that THEY are the unethical ones. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

2 So, wait, they weren't making up quotes? Or becaue you believe that since the TRUTH is higher than the facts that it was ok to ascribe a quote that is not there? Collaborative OPERATIONAL relationship is different than a 'collaborative relationship' since the former suggests that Iraq helped plan specific terrorst acts while the latter suggest that while Iraq had a relationship with al Qaeda that the relationship had not developed to this point.

3 Didn't know what this was all about until the wife told me that the NY times has come out for Bush. Now I understand.