So my man Bill O'Reilly is being criticized for an editing he did while debating his guest, David Cole. I'm going to let you read the article and make up your own mind.
You could come up with three conclusions after reading this article.
Number 1: O'Reilly twisted the words and used it to his advantage to prove his point of view.
Number 2: The statement he made was a correct interpretation of Thomas Kean's statement.
Number 3: Since, the article doesn't state the content of the show in question, you cannot come up with any conclusion.
I do want to add that I didn't see the airing of the show that is being discussed in this article, nor did the author, Howard Kurtz, state that he saw the airing. Also, David Cole, the one accusing O'Reilly of foul play, did not state the contents of O'Reilly's argument. I don't know if he was trying to state there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, which would mean that he twisted Kean's words to make his point. Or, if there is a connection between Hussein and Al-Qaida, which would mean his statement was not incorrect.