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?
At least one attack every two years since the Gulf War . Revenge and deniability: Saddam's a grandmaster of that game. Why stop now?
>We are the ones who are being deterred, not him. He already got his rocks off on September 11, remember?
I was not speaking of his being deterred now, but questioning how he would be deterred in the scenario you described: "Bush may simply put on a song-and-dance over the weapons stuff, and let Saddam off with a nod and wink ("Not guilty, but don't do it again!")." I'm saying he won't be deterred then either. He'll continue the revenge + deniability game. No reason for him not to try again for the White House and the Congress. It took him two shots to take down the WTC. Remember?