When you read Stephen Hayes, you often get the sense that he's the only guy in journalism who actually reads all of the information about Iraq and al Qaeda. Which makes him a pretty invaluable resource. His take-down of the new Levin report is particularly devastating.

What I don't understand is why Democrats feel the need to be so transparently dishonest about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. If they were more honest, they would grant the connection between Saddam and Osama--which is, as an analytical matter, undeniable--and then say that they didn't find their relationship to be serious enough to warrant action. Then we could have a grown-up debate about preemption and the nature of evidence and threats. Which I think would be pretty good for all of us.

Instead, because most Democrats have circled the wagons around a proposition which is objectively false in order to . . . well, to be truthful, I have no idea why they've chosen this route. Unless they think they'd come out on the wrong side of that grown-up debate on preemption.