It seems that Republicans are pleased that President Bush is parsing his words in a "Clinton-esque" fashion.

---President Bush says, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

---NewsMax paraphrases Chairman Hamilton, saying he is "insisting that his probe uncovered 'all kinds' of connections between Osama bin Laden's terror network and Iraq."

---The 9/11 report says "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

In my opinion, President Bush is parsing his words disingenuously. When President Bush says "there was a relationship [between Iraq and Al Qaeda]," and Chairman Hamilton says there were "connections," they appear to be referencing the 9/11 report wording noting "contacts."

But President Bush is still stuck with the 9/11 report saying there doesn't appear to be a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I can have "contacts" with a grocery cashier each week, but it doesn't mean I'm having a "collaborative relationship" affair with her.

So apparently President George "Clinton" Bush is telling us, "I guess it depends on what the definition of 'relationship' is."

I bet this wordplay is going to backfire on Bush big time. He was supposedly the straight shooter, the straight talker, who was going to bring decency back to the White House.

You assume that Bush is a believer in the accuracy of the 9/11 reports. I doubt he takes it very seriously and shouldn't. It's become a place for grandstanding and partisan attacks. I do believes there was some kind of relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Just because there isn't absolute proof doesn't mean it's not correct. At the same time whether that relationship was real or not Iraq was a major sponsor of terror.