I don't believe Bagdad was linked to the people who performed the sept. 11 attacks, no. I'm pointing out that the only substantial evidence in existence, "if the meeting took place", that might link Bagdad to al-Quida operations from before the war is implying this. Stronger than implying, really.
Exactly. So why would Cheney happily use this rumour to substantiate that there were links between Bagdad and al-Quida? It doesn't add up, and it is very disturbing that the administration dissects evidence like this, picking out the pieces that are useful and scrapping the rest. Even one example of this do bring up difficult questions, don't you agree?
But now I have related to you a bit of the small history of the evidence for this meeting. I readily admit that I would be scared as hell of another terrorist attack if I lived in the US, but still - the evidence and so on. Should not the evidence for the meeting, if it exists, be clear enough to come to a conclusion?
What I read in the report, and what I heard Clarke drone on about in the hearing is that it is the intelligence community's job to be suspicious. To follow up every possible lead. But as Clarke insists, to act without substantial evidence, to turn suspicion into evidence, that should not be done. And the 9.11 panel says consistently - "it is said", "it is probable". They do not say that there exists evidence. In fact, they are relating the info the panel extracted from the interviews - they do not judge, as I believe one in the panel said. Several of the interviewed subjects also submitted testimonies that state there was no credible evidence to tie Bagdad to al- Quida, which should be mentioned as well, and it is also in the report. But I do see that the suspicion should've lead to more investigation, of course. The suspicions could turn out to be true.

As for the link to terrorism in general, what real evidence is there? Payments to the families of palestinian martyrs? Is there anything else apart from being generally the enemy of the US (at least lately)? There was rumours of terrorist training camps with high tech equipment in the desert in Iraq as well, I remember. That turned out to be a pilot academy, and the high tech equipment was a radar detector in one of the security doors. Another thing is that al- Quida, as well as Ansar al Islam for instance are very religious groups, and not really something to expect would be helped by Saddam. Of course, the report, I didn't get who made that claim, states it is possible that a deal was made with al-Quida on a weapons programme to stop attacks on Iraq. That at least shows intent and will from Bagdad to help terror groups with their goals, if it is true. But where is the evidence? Someone claimed it, and the report says it is likely or something similar, but it is also disputed by others. Does this mean there are no convincing evidence?
I think that is a bit strong. There are several leads that might suggest it. Powell for instance claimed this was so in the UN adress, but his evidence - the best they had - was not substantial either. And as mentioned, one piece of (possibly)perfect evidence that Cheney is currently saying is "uncertain" is disputed by both the CIA and FBI, as well as most others(beside the Czech foreign minister, if I remember correctly). Now if they are so certain, why is there no evidence?
The legislation reads something like this: if Iraq does not submit to the UN's demands. That leaves the harbouring terrorist clause, in my opinion.

I seriously think that a very unfriendly investigation on just exactly what grounds the war- decision was made upon would have been launched if a government here had done the same. I mean, I can agree as much as I like about that the world is a better place without Saddam in Iraq, but would you feel very good if you know that a war can, and apparently should, be started based on hunches and guesses?
I agree it would be hypocritical of me to say you should lay blame without proof, but I am not asking that. I'm not even saying that you are irrational and uncritical - in fact I believe the very opposite - but I do not think that it is commendable to shy away from difficult questions. Specially when there is a pretty good amount of them piling up. This way, none of the evidence you're looking for in order to find an informed opinion will ever show up.
I haven't read the entire Dulfer report. I would guess that not very many people have. But reading the overview, it must be difficult not to spot that from the outset it will prove that undoubtedly it must follow that Hussein wanted to construct illegal wmds. Quote from "key findings":
"Saddam recognized that the reconstitution of Iraqi WMD enhanced both his security and image. Consequently, Saddam needed to end UN-imposed sanctions to fulfi ll his goals."
And what does this mean, then? That Saddam would cheat the inspection regime and then make wmds. Period. Yet, no possible evidence - the key findings even says this clearly - exists that would show if there were any wmds, or any intent to produce(this is explained by yet another "shrewd" maneuver from Saddam by avoiding to create a paper trail) the illegal stockpiles and so on. In other words, the report makes plain that we so suspect and even know the motives of Saddam (consequently explaining the entire policy, as explained during several pages of assessments that of course might have merit, but still..), that no such evidence is necessary. In other words, no wmds or evidence, but that is just because Saddam was too smart for us. I don't know what you would call a report that states things like that other than opinionated (but then, I'm no native english speaker). Bull, perhaps? Circumstantial evidence at best? It is not made any better by the fact that the report will use actions taken during the war with Iran to further draw conclusions about what Iraq's goals were more recently. Consequently, as the report says many times, we now know several things.

And so, the report and it's explanation on the physical evidence clearly finds that the claims made by the Bush- administration were incorrect - but they took a good look in the crystal ball and guessed right, and so everything is all right it seems. The senate hearings on the report also seems to have come to that conclusion. It is all right to lie a little, as long as it is discovered to be necessary in the end. I wonder, where have the american pragmatism and objectivity gone to rest this time?