How are we in a stronger position to retaliate after his next attack? Why, if we dare not publicly point the finger at him now, should he be deterred, as his threat becomes more credible and ours less so?
We don't know there will be a next attack. He may have gotten his rocks off sufficiently on 9/11. It seems awfully quiet out there. Let's face it, as an artistic masterpiece of revenge, September 11 far surpasses anything else in human history -- Saddam has plenty of reason to quit while he's ahead. Saddam is a realist, as well as sadist. Why should he asks for the stars, when he already has the moon?
Why, if we dare not publicly point the finger at him now, should he be deterred, as his threat becomes more credible and ours less so?
Point number one: We are the ones who are being deterred, not him. He already got his rocks off on September 11, remember?
Point number two: his threat will inevitably become less credible with time, because our biodefenses will get better. He's probably gambling that, at age 65, either he'll be dead, or 9/11 will be a dead issue by the time we can take a gamble on the taking him out. He may very well have calculated correctly. Everything else about the 9/11 attacks was masterfully conceived and executed. Why should we assume the back-end security wasn't similarly well thought through?