No, up to now we need misdirection more than more public support. A few months ago the world community, perhaps even Saddam, was not convinced that we were committed to invasion.
We have the legal authority to invade right now. And we still have a narrow majority of public support.
We weren't ready to invade until now, needing satellite guided weapons replenishment, Afghan wrap up, special training, forward deployments of equipment, airstrip construction, vaccine restocking and the fall climate change. But we didn't want to over-forecast our intentions, certainly not almost a year in advance. One year of firm notice would have given Saddam more time to commit to more elaborate counter attacks, justifying them by our overt threats, and would have allowed international opposition time to ferment, more so than now.
At some point we will need to shift over and trade operational ambiguity for public support. Perhaps that time is now, to coincide with the 9/11 memorials.
The fact remains that if there was any known meeting between Atta and Saddam the administration would be screaming this in the face of any reporter or potential coalition member they could find. Do you actually think they wouldn't have mentioned the small detail of Atta meets Saddam to the delegation from congress the other day? If it was mentioned do you think there would be one single member leaving that meeting with even the slightest reservation in regard to invading Iraq?
Somebody somewhere is hoping we're stupid, "leaking" this propagandic horseflop is beyond insulting.