As poorly argued as the Stephen Hayes piece is, Andrew McCarthy's article on National Review Online is even worse. He assails the "pigheaded blindness" that moves "breathtakingly irresponsible" journalists and intelligence analysts to dismiss connections between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda terror.

Since the NRO piece relies on the "assiduous detective work" of Hayes, we don't need to explore territory we already crossed in Part I. But it is worth specifically looking at one of McCarthy's claims.

"Even if there were absolutely no other evidence of the Prague meeting than the Czech eyewitness identification corroborated by the appointment calendar, the inability to account for Atta's whereabouts on April 8, and the means he appears to have had to travel," he writes, "that would be reason enough, for national-security purposes, to assume an Iraqi tie to Atta." No, actually it wouldn't. We have our own intelligence and they are not persuaded by the story of the phantom Prague meeting, and the inability to track Atta's location on April 8 doesn't mean that he was in the Czech Republic.

Employing the twisted logic that led to the preemptive war that preempted nothing, McCarthy conjects: "we need to assume guilt until we are satisfied otherwise."

"I don't pretend to have the answers," McCarthy admits, "but it sure looks to me like Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda and that his regime may well have rendered assistance--probably very substantial assistance--to the 9/11 plot." When you find evidence to support this belief, do let the rest of us know.

When I want wild conspiracy theories I'll watch The X-Files. I expect better from two of the most widely-read publications of American conservatism.