Now that the surge is succeeding beyond Obama's "wildest dreams" (er, nightmares?), the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media have predictably turned down the temperature on the Iraq war debate. But as we move closer to election day, we should fully expect that Obama will reiterate his central argument for why he -- and not McCain -- has the judgment for the job, i.e., Obama's opposition to the Iraq war. Put aside for the moment that Biden -- who was selected to sure up Obama's foreign policy credentials -- vigorously supported the Iraq war. Also put aside that Obama's "courageous" opposition to the war was actually a matter of political expediency, as the New Republic has reported.
Let's address the matter head on. The Democrats' essential argument on Iraq is that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Bin Laden. But what this argument overlooks is that Saddam offered Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq in late 1998 and/or 1999 -- the very timeframe during which 9/11 attacks were being planned. In fact, that was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report, although it was all but ignored by the mainstream media. Here is the relevant excerpt from the 9/11 Report:
In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
So the next time you hear a "progressive" squawk that there was "no relationship" between Bin Laden and Saddam, make sure you hit 'em with the facts.