Sure, there is only one rational answer. But Sadaam wasn't rational, and you shouldn't ascribe rationality to him. It might even be another answer: he was tired of being told what to do. Bullies and bad boys are like that, just as a lot of good people are.
The fact remains that the Al Quaeda connection appears and appeared before the war to be B.S. It couldn't sell, so the war was sold on WMD. Now, you can get all over me all you want, but it isn't playing in Peoria or anywhere else in the world. I'm just a messenger. Bush has a problem and Rush's repeating the claim that the war was sold on other than the WMD doesn't make it so.
You will disagree with the entire second paragraph, so do it and let's end the debate. Your mind won't change; until we see something substantive, mine won't. I think we were--probably inadvertently--sold a bill of goods.
Al Queda had set up shop in Iraq until the U.S. military ran it out. Its leaders traveled to and from Baghdad planning evil and setting up the means to carry it out.
Iraqi fingers are in many terrorist pies from WTC1 to OKC to WTC2. They cannot be all explained away.
When a federal court finds Saddam financially liable for the WTC2 attack that is not just the fevered product of my imagination. It approaches what can be called a "fact."
In addition, the anthrax attacks will eventually be traced back to Iraq.
As far as the 2nd paragraph. To most people it does not matter if SH did not have WMD. He acted like it and that was good enough for any but chronic complainers.