How do you know, O omnisentient one? (the words used was "linked with", not "helped with", btw.)

I have a question worthy of your abilities, actually. The meeting between an Iraqi official and one of the hijackers from the 9.11 attacks allegedly happened some time in April 2001 according to Czech intelligence (or in June 2000, according to other Czech intelligence). The Czech expelled the Iraqi diplomat later in April, probably for being a spy, but that the meeting was connected to this is not confirmed by the Czech. Also, the information about the meeting did not reach the US until after the events of 9.11, since the reason why the meeting could be relevant was that the name or the face of one of the hijackers matched(noone has yet made public enough information about the intelligence to clarify this, so this is an assumption from the media). At that time, the US denied that such a meeting could've happened, since Atta had - according to the CIA - never left the US. Since then, some Czech officials have noted that Atta might resemble another connection the Iraqi official often met with, even though the official stance from the Czech is that the meeting did happen. (or was it that the foreign minister claim it did, and the rest claim it didn't? I don't remember). Indifferent of this it seems, many members of the Bush administration(i.e. Wolfowitz, Cheney) claim that "if the meeting happened", then this shows that Iraq had ties to al- Quida at worst, or terrorist activities in general.

The question to you is: why is it important to say this in relation to the rationale for the war? Am I to understand that they are saying that /if/ there /might/ be a connection, then the war was perfectly justified due to the harbouring terrorists clause in the 2002 authorization? Is there another reason or justification? What do you think?