Er. I'll try again, one small bit at a time. Without the sarcasm and the bad and ill- timed jokes this time(if I can help it).

First, let us look at the importance of the Prague meeting, if it took place. This was before sept.11 and it involved someone who was an al-Quida operative. The man at this meeting, if this information is correct, would later steer a plane into the twin towers. What is it about this meeting that is important then? This means that Iraq had connections with al- Quida operatives before 9.11, and that Bagdad had ties to the actual people that steered the planes into the twin towers. In other words, as clear evidence as you can get that Iraq was a threat to the US, and that they were working with terrorists.

Cheney does not say this much. He is very clear that there is no evidence that Bagdad had anything to do with the 9.11 incident. But he says that we don't know for sure, what happened there, at the meeting in Prague, if it took place. He says that we do not know. But what he does know is that the link between al- Quida and Iraq exists, even though the actual physical evidence for this is very slight. In fact, the more specific evidence becomes, the less accurate and more general it is. Yet, we all know that Iraq had long connections to terrorist groups. It is very unfortunate that there is so much evidence that follow this pattern, and not one bit of evidence which is clear. Worse, much of the evidence must be interpreted before it reads the correct conclusion. The Prague meeting is a prime example.
Really? There is only a connection to al- Quida(and not 9.11) in the form of an operative that coincidentally had something to do with 9.11. If you still think that the paragraph you wrote about the different other events had something to do with how insignificant this meeting was in determining how al- Quida had something to do with Iraq, please point out where the other clear and definitive leads between /Iraq/ and al- Quida before the war is. You have said yourself on occation that the evidence is the issue, or something to that effect. So, what does it all mean? Why is there only assessments and not clear evidence for this al- Quida connection? And why is Cheney nursing the rumour of the Prague meeting while still denying that Bagdad had links to the people who carried out the attacks on 9.11?

Another thing is that if these ties are somewhat insubstantial, what would that make the attack on Iraq? Would it perhaps make it illegal also in regard to the 2002 approval in the Congress for use of force?
Well, you're very good at demonstrating how it is possible that Bush could win the votes even of people who prize themselves on being rational and critical.
And then you quote this: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...y_Findings.pdf
and you call it "proof". Honestly, I can't even act that arrogant.
(and no, I don't think it's a problem that it says CIA on it. The problem is that it is one the most opinionated reports I have seen ever since I wrote a complaint to the schoolboard about one of my teachers in highschool.)