And that word is “connection.” Let’s look at MRC’s comments on the 9/11 report:

At the 9/11 Commission press conference on Thursday, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard noted how the 9/11 Commission changed its language from the staff report’s statement of “no collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al-Qaeda the final report’s characterization of “no collaborative operational relationship with regard to the attacks on the United States.” Chairman Tom Kean confirmed that “there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” Nonetheless, some prominent media figures distorted the Commission’s finding.

Ok, that’s the set up. Let’s take a second to define what they mean: “no collaborative operational relationship with regard to the attacks on the United States.” Ok, what does that mean? Iraq did not cooperate with al Qaeda on any attacks. What would that entail? Giving them weapons or passports used in preparation for a specific attack or safe haven, I would assume, since they’ve said they don’t know about weapons collaboration (I take that as them having no evidence) and they also say there was only thought that they would grant al Qaeda safe haven. Kean’s comments:

Tom Kean responded: “Well, there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. At one point, there was thought maybe even al-Qaeda would find sanctuary in Iraq. And there were conversations that went on over a number of years, sometimes successful, sometimes unsuccessfully. While we don’t know about weapons collaboration, particularly chemical collaboration, there was a suspicion in the Clinton administration that when they fired that bomb at that factory, that if in fact, there were chemicals there, they may have come from Iraq. So there was a relationship.
“Having said that, we have found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11. That just doesn’t exist. So I think we are very careful in our wording in using that word �collaborative relationship.’ I mean, that’s what we found. It’s language that’s evidence-based.

Lee Hamilton says:

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, who last month scolded the press for mis-reporting on the subject, added: “In further response, I think there’s a very large distinction between evidence of conversations that might have occurred between Iraq and al-Qaeda, on the one hand, and an emerging strategy or emerging assistance — concrete — on the other. And what we do not have, as the Chairman said, is any evidence of a concrete collaborative operational agreement. Conversations, yes, but nothing concrete.”

What does “relationship” in the broader sense mean for the commission? Talks, meetings, discussions, etc.

Now, what has the Bush administration claimed as the extent of their cooperation? Cheney has said: “[Iraq is the] geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” Bush has said:

We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy � the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade” and “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda” and “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

The Bush administration was not simply claiming “relationship” limited to contacts and discussions, they were claiming a concrete, working relationship. This level of a relationship has become what the press calls a “connection:”

On Thursday’s Today, Matt Lauer told Tim Russert that “one of the Bush administration’s stated reasons for going to war with Iraq, Tim, was the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. This report says they have not found that connection but they do talk about Iran…” Russert failed to clarify the matter.

MRC is attacking (though mildly: “over-simplify”) Lauer and Russert on an issue of semantics. What the press calls a “connection” is Bush’s aid assertions, which the Commission mostly denies (they avoid the chemical weapons claims), not simply “contacts” or meetings. What the commission refers to as a “relationship” or connection is exactly that, talks and contacts. The Bush administration’s claims plainly conflict with the Commission’s findings. MRC hides behind semantics and a willfull misreading of Lauer’s statement in it’s bashing of the press.

And one last thing:

Neither ABC’s World News Tonight nor the NBC Nightly News brought up the Iraq-al-Qaeda issue, but on the CBS Evening News, Jim Stewart ran through how the commission “debunked some 9/11 myths,” including how “the commission said emphatically that although Iraq may have once offered bin Laden safe haven, it found no connection between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda and 9/11.” Talk about shooting down a red herring, the Bush administration never claimed Saddam Hussein had a role in the 9/11 attacks. Stewart proceeded to run this clip from Kean as the press conference: “We found no relationship whatever between Iraq and the attack on 9/11. That just doesn’t exist.”

Of course, a large portion of the population (70% at one time) did believe that, and it’s still around 50% last I saw. So it’s not really a red herring, seeing as they didn’t attribute the statement to the Bush administration and it clearly is a 9/11 myth.