But do we have an affidavit signed by both Atta and Saddam, duly witnessed by independent third parties, that such a meeting took place? Absent such how can we possibly believe that there is a credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? How can we act until we are metaphysically certain that Saddam told Atta what to do? \sarcasm Some people (Euroweenies, Senate Dims, etc.) are beyond convincing. They will bleat "you haven't made the case" ad nauseum--a clever formulation that conveniently shifts the blame to Bush and hence allows them to avoid making the hard judgments and gives them maximum flexibility to revise their "positions" as circumstances change.
Bush has to go to Congress in the next month to force these people to put up or shut up. Each member of Congress owes his constituents an up or down vote before the next election. It is their duty--a word that I am sure most of them have no conception of--to state their views and vote accordingly on the most important issue of the time before facing the voters in November. That is the purpose of elections--to hold our representatives accountable. Bush should force them to account, and not let them weasel out as they so desperately want to do.
No but we may have his DNA on Saddams blue dress. Is that enough proof?