One of the prevailing myths (though that's a generous term--perhaps Big Lie would be more accurate) of the left was that Saddam had no ties to terrorism prior to his removal (Obama has used it as a central theme, in fact, of his campaign). Many in the media reported a few days ago that a recent Pentagon report had substantiated this template. However, as Ed Morrissey notes, they could have done this only by not reading the report, relying instead on spin and leaks from the Pentagon. Those who did actually read it would come to an opposite conclusion:
The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.
And why would anyone be surprised that this was the case? He hated the US, and Israel, and was rewarding Palestinian suicide bombers' families with cash. Other than the other myth (that he was secular, and they were extreme Islamic fanatics, and would have nothing to do with each other), why wouldn't he collaborate and cooperate with them against a common enemy?
If the McCain campaign is smart, they'll use this to school Obama again. Particularly since his proposed solution--to not have invaded Iraq--involves the need for a time machine.
I don't think it will amount to much. The opposition to truth will merely state something along the lines of, "...does not constitute a definitive reason for use of American military might." They will wonder why we didn't concentrate our efforts on Osama, and Osama alone....again.
However, a telling point against universal health care is to merely draw the link to another government funded program that has failed us...education.
Personally, I don't think this election will be won over the Iraq War. I'm not yet sure what the defining issue will be, but I get the feeling the American public is largely sick of hearing about Iraq, thanks to the media's coverage to the negative.
Ah, optimism.
Nobody on the opposition cared about such petty distinctions when "no operational link but cooperation" was revealed the first time, a few years ago.
They're not going to start reading the fine print and thinking things through now, either.
(Hell, people still try to tell me "Bush lied about Niger and yellowcake", and that one's been dead in the water for years, too, what with the Butler and Robb-Silberman reports.)
When you start off with the belief that a US President blew-up the WTC based on a premise that fire can't melt steal, then you are not going to have an epithany when the Pentagon announces that Saddam did have ties to Al Qaeda.