, 1 August 2005 (UTC) 
 #:::You're being ridiculous - please assume good faith.  I do not seek to "deny readers access" to these conclusions; I just question their relevance.  All major figures from the Clinton Admin who posited an al Qaeda-Saddam link have since changed their minds.  You have to realize that our understanding of al Qaeda was in a pretty primitive state before 9/11, because so few took them seriously, and the ones who did, perceived them through older models of analysis (the "state sponsored terrorism" thesis) that are not as relevant to a diffuse network like al-Qaeda.  People cite the fact that Richard Clarke used to think there was a link as if it proves that the link must be true.  Oddly, these are the same people who dispute Clarke's credibility now.  It seems they're incapable of understanding that people can change their minds about something when confronted with new evidence about it.  I'm also unclear why you say I want to refuse people access to the conclusions of Judge Baer  I clearly left that item in the timeline.  But don't pretend these opinions have the same weight as a bipartisan commission assigned with the specific mission to investigate these sorts of things, especially when their conclusions have the benefit of years of hindsight (as opposed to the opinions of some Clinton admin members back in 1998).  Some Clinton officials  e.g. Daniel Benjamin  investigated the al Q link with the belief that they would have found links to Saddam, and were surprised when their research proved the opposite.  I think it's silly to think that we should give greater weight to what these people said in the mid- to late-1990s than their conclusions after years of further research specifically focused on the issue.  23:17