It does indeed.
The point of my #47 is that Bush should Re-State his Case, and Re-Formulate it in those terms. Those terms exactly.
When you bet on Two Horses ("WMD" and "Anti-Terrorism"), and your Second Horse ("Anti-Terrorism") wins the Race... it's not too late to point out to the Naysayers that you did, in fact, bet on the Second Horse (even when the First Horse barely even Showed).
I just listened to O'Reilly's last segment with Stephen Hayes, author of a book about the Connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He did an excellent, rational job of presenting the case. Tons of evidence that the media glitterati ignore or demean.
O'Reilly seemed perplexed as to why the Bush Administration isn't pushing this Terrorism angle.
He also stated that there'd be a major story in this area breaking tomorrow. (I don't know if he's just building up his show, or if something's afoot. Perhaps this very story of this very thread is what he's going to put front and center.)
The racetrack is where I spent a lot of my youth with my dad, a Baptist who was also a great lover of horses. (He wasn't much of a gambler....if he spent $12 in a day, that was a lot....to include parking and entrance.)
In any case, if you bet a horse to place or to show and it wins, then you get paid. If you bet it to win, and it doesn't, then you start looking at the Racing Form to the horses in the next race.
Bush boxed his bets, but, in my opinion, his WIN money was INITIALLY & ALWAYS placed on those who aided/abetted/harbored terrorists. WMDs was his show horse. It's fighting its way down the stretch, but it looks like, with the sarin bomb, precurser chemicals, and wmd programs, that it's gonna come in at least in the show position.
Bush wins on both bets.
Not bad for a dyslexic Texic Cowboy.