>>If Bush makes the case that the Islamist groups, Al Quaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbullah, Hamas, etc are making common cause, and being backed by Iraq and Iran, I think the public will buy the argument.<<
The public, so far, has bought what it can see with its own eyes: a devastating response to an unimaginable murderous act.
You make it sound like Bush could sell a car to a guy who bought one last year for a specific excursion. Iraq, Pt 1 required Saddam to take hostage one set of oilfields, thus threatening our energy needs. Iraq Part Deux can't come close to carrying such massive support without the simple luxury of some actual evidence of Hussein's complicity in something.
Wolfowitz's cabal has already floated all they can to implicate Hussein in everything from aiding Al Qaida to the recent anthrax mailings. But investigation of all claims to date have yielded no fruit for the salad, other than one meeting some years back between hijacker Atta and a mid-level Iraqi official that would be a dubious go-between.
Sure, Bush can get some yayhoos on board by snapping his fingers, and he might even fool enough to constitute a majority. But it takes a sizable majority to sustain such a plan without vehement protests raising havoc at home.
Without more evidence, I think such an argument would fail. |
