As I said in an earlier post, there are plenty of good justications for the war, but too many of them, like the al-Qaeda/Hussein connection, cannot be plainly demonstrated in unambiguous, open language, which is a severe problem for a leader who needs to openly rally a vast and diverse electorate around his war aims.
I personally have no doubt that Saddam had a cooperative relationship with Bin Laden, and polls seem to indicate that much of the country is similarly inclined, but it sure would be nice to see a proof for the charge that doesn't require a kind of subtle understanding the secret activities of rogue regimes but can be easily dechiphered by JoeSixPack, i.e., the typical voter.
Personally, I would rather have a President who protects our country when its in danger rather than someone who becomes paralyzed into inaction because they cannot find a document that "plainly demonstrates in unambigious, open language" the connection between clandestine terrorist groups.
Iraq harbored numerous known terrorists, some of whom were wanted by America and other countries for past atttacks.
Iraq also supplied scientists and other assets to various programs ongoing in other countries, such as Libya, which has just come clean with its past intentions while turning over vast amounts of evidence to British and American authorities.
Would you prefer to have waited for a nuclear bomb blast in Atlanta or a sarin gas attack in Chicago before we acted??