I’ve read this Weekly Standard article about alleged Saddam-Osama links. The pro-war right, unsurprisingly, is going mad about the piece. I’m extremely sceptical, partly based on timing (not necessarily Bush’s timing… the best-placed to benefit would be any anti-Dean Democrat, maybe one with high profile intelligence connections), and partly on content.

Content why? Aside from obvious questions over the source (and the kind of partisan gloating at the end that’s entirely uncalled for in a news piece…), it’s based on combining existing allegations with either uncredible or unremarkable new stuff – going for volume over quality.

Ho hum. Let’s see how it all pans out…