A March Surprise

Upon reaching what many refer to as a “milestone” when the United States military reached the 4,000 combat death number, the anti-war left continues to repeat their mantra that this is a war fought over oil and that al Qaeda had no terror ties to Iraq, thus Iraq had no ties to the 9/11 attacks.

---

Bush lied, people died.

The Pentagon just published a report that officially confirms that there was never any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The report is entitled, ‘Oops, Our Bad.’ – Conan O’Brien

Now while everyone from activists to late-night comics joke about what’s been called a fatal lapse in our intelligence, initial reports were quite assured that Saddam Hussein had prior knowledge of all that would be September 11. Remember, prior to 9/11 many of those who admonish President Bush for our futile search in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction that “didn’t exist”, were themselves ready to remove Saddam by force prior to the 2000 election. But many of us still remember the initial news reports from September 12 that asserted the link between Iraq and 9/11.

"We’ve only got scraps of information, not the full picture," admits one intelligence source, "but it was good enough for us to send a warning six weeks ago to our allies that an unprecedented massive terror attack was expected. One of our indications suggested that Imad Mughniyeh met with some of his dormant agents on secret trips to Germany. We believe that the operational brains behind the New-York attack were Mughniyeh and Zawahiri, who were probably financed and got some logistical support from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (SSO)." – Janes, 9/19/01

While being ridiculed, patience would prove us right all along. As it doesn’t meet the media template, and might surely embarrass the two Democrat presidential candidates, we’ll not hear much about this, but it turns out Saddam may not only had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks, but provided logistical support. According to a Washington Times editorial,

Newly declassified documents captured in Iraq show that Saddam Hussein's regime had extensive ties with a variety of Islamist and other terrorist groups, in some cases dating back to the early 1990s. Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence Service (or Mukhabarat) established a working relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, whose leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, later merged the group with al Qaeda, according to a new report by the Institute for Defense Analyses. In addition, the Mukhabarat trained scores of non-Iraqi Arabs to attack Israel. The new report contains copies of captured Iraqi documents that provide what may be the most detailed picture ever of Baghdad's support for terrorism.

It’s now well suspected that Ayman al-Zawahiri was the operational mastermind behind 9/11, and now there are documents to back that up. Whether or not we hear about it is another thing. If the New York Times blows it off, then it’s considered never to have happened, and that’s how the left would like it to remain, at least until after November 5. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if only after a Democrat took the White House, after seven years of Bush bashing on the topic, it was revealed that Bush was right all along? That not only did Saddam Hussein have prior knowledge of September 11, but also may have possibly financed and provided its logistics? How would the anti-war left handle the truth if proven they, their assumptions and subsequent insults were all wrong? Knowing them as we do, an apology to President Bush will never come. Congressman John Conyers has vowed to impeach Bush before the end of his presidency (after the general election as to not harm Democrats). I hope to hear more about these newly declassified documents captured in Iraq. These documents could blow smoke up the butts of Michael Moore, Code Pink, Truthout, and all the anti-war types who have insisted that the United States is an occupier and not a liberator of Iraq. Today, they protest and bomb military recruiter offices, spit on returning soldiers, and perform the traditional disdain for all things national security. And when they are proven wrong, don’t expect any retractions. Don’t expect Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton to acknowledge their ridiculing of the President of the United States was unfounded and (during a time of war) just plain wrong. This could be the “March Surprise” that no one will hear about. The truth can be an ugly thing, especially when it would prove millions of people not only wrong, but also dangerously foolish and juvenile. Let’s see if the mainstream media does its job….