I'm in Europe again on a biz trip and I always do my best when out here to survey the beat on the street.   One common argument that I hear on the street and in the press is "Bush hasn't proved that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 yet he keeps using the 9/11 argument over and over again."    Commentators like Tim Sebastian on BBC's Hard Talk go so far as to say "The American Public has been brainwashed by this argument."

Well, it isn't that simple.   If you *really* carefully examine the rhetoric from the administration, they (generally) aren't saying that Saddam was pulling the strings that made 9/11 happen.   There are undoubtedly a few counter-quotes out there... but the dominant meme is NOT that there is direct casuality to 9/11.  

What *IS* being argued about the linkage between the Iraq *situation* and 9/11 is somewhat different:

9/11 lowered America's tolerance for rogue regimes.   Prior to 9/11, we implicitly assumed that if someone wanted to *really* hurt us, they had to amass & fund armies, cross the oceans and take on our military.   Post-9/11 the average American now recognizes that the swamplands of the world (like Afghanistan) need to be drained to keep WMD-bearing mosquitos from flying out into our cities.  

The Swamp Masters will do everything they can to hold on to their playpens and in some situations, can only be removed via force.  Saddam isn't the source of 9/11 but 9/11 is the source of our new anxiety towards thugs like Saddam.

There is one source of linkage between 9/11 and and Iraqi intervention that perversely may satisfy some apologists (although not moi).   Bin Laden's stated primary beef with the US is the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.  We aren't about to unilaterally pull them out because they're there because the Saudi government needs them.  Saddam's next door neighbors know that we're their best insurance policy against him.