Glenn Reynolds notes that next week's 9/11 Commission report is expected to "spell out a connection between Iran and Al Qaeda," and asks, "Will those who said that it was wrong to invade Iraq because there wasn't enough evidence of such a connection now weigh in in favor of invading Iran?" (Link via Kevin Drum.)

No, they probably won't, Glenn. Instead, they'll simply direct people to your archives so that they can see for themselves that the 9/11 Commission and its findings are fundamentally unreliable.

In fact, if they're in a particularly snarky mood, they'll simply say, "The 9/11 Commission claims there's an Iran connection? Well, consider the source. I stopped taking them seriously a while ago."

POSTSCRIPT: For the record, I've taken the 9/11 Commission seriously from the beginning and will continue to do so until their work is finished, whether I find it helpful on a political level or not. Down here in South Carolina, where a term like "intellectual honesty" can sound a little phony and highfalutin', we call that kind of consistency "integrity" -- and it would be nice if we saw a little more of it from the folks whose presidential candidate keeps insisting that this election is ultimately about the nature and quality of each side's values.

UPDATE (8:30am): I just reread this post, and the last sentence is too tough. Though I do think it's grossly unfair to smack your political opponents across the chops with a report that you've previously gone to great lengths to discredit, I shouldn't have personalized the discussion by implying that Glenn lacks integrity. That's not what we're about around here, and I apologize. And I'll try to not to let my Irish get the best of me next time.

--------