In 1993, the WTC was attacked by persons connected not just to al Qeda but to the accessories from Iraq whom it is now certain helped to finance and train and provide with documents forged and covered through the invasion of Kuwait.
The planned hijacking plot for several airliners by an Iraqi connected terrorist group working in the Phillipines that never happened due to lucky intel and accidental disruptions.
Saddam and Usama's sons are close friends (Uday, I believe is the one who invited Usama's son to a birthday party in Iraq).
Salman Pak is well covered above, but note please the connection to the research and training with chem and bio weapons there and the defectors who've testified to al Qaeda members being trained there.
It is now known from defectors out of Iraq that Saddam sent persons from his secret police to Afghanistan, to train and equip al Qeda personnel in handling and producing bio and chem weapons, now connected to the planned use of chem weapons in London, thwarted by the Italian efforts.
Saddam tried to assassinate the previous President Bush in Kuwait.
Saddam has invaded two neighboring nations and used chemical weapons on the Iranis, weapons originally obtained through the Carter administration.
Saddam has murdered tens-of-thousands of his own Iraqi people, including moire than ten thousand Kurdish villagers, not Kurdish troops in rebellion.
There are dozens of al Qaeda now being harbored in Baghdad and Northern Iraq.
saddam pays the families of the suicide murderers assaulting the civilians of Israel.
Saddam sent scud missiles into Saudi Arabian and Israel, killing civilians as well as our troops there.
It is the espoused aim of Islamism to rule the world and Saddam has made speeches in which he fashions his image as a modern Islamic messiah ... and any student of history understand the peril in ignoring an Islamic man professing the desire to rule his known world and bring all non-Moslem people under the forced worship of allah or be put to the sword.
I personally accept quite a few of your items, taken together, as more than sufficent cause for attacking Iraq.
From my reading of scripture I would offer that Jesus doesn't condemn self defense and if you cannot see that Iraq poses a direct threat to the U.S and in fact all of Western Civilization with his proven connections to terrorist groups who hate America and have vowed to attack us, then I cannot persuade you further. Perhaps we are to remain in disagreement.
We are already in a HOT war with world-wide terrorism and Saddam, if he remains alive in power in Iraq, can and will export death and misery to this nation for we are the only real thing standing between him and world domination via control over Middle East oil. If he gets nukes, he will use them on Iran and Kuwait and then seek some way to destroy Israel, and he doesn't care how many Iraqis or Israelis are slaughtered in his quest. Perhaps that would be the onset of armageddon, but it is troubling that I do not find America in the final battle of Revelations. I don't want to risk Saddam aiding and abetting our demise.
Part of the problem is that we are tending to use traditional courtroom standards of proof. We Americans automatically tend to play devil's advocate. This may be why the CIA has disparaged our Czech intelligence colleagues even though the Czechs have angrily retorted that they are sure of the fact of Atta's meeting with Iraqi intelligences.
(Another much weirder example of a willingness to discard evidence which technically falls short of ironclad proof is the fact that the UN weapons inspectors apparently accepted the Iraqi explanation that Salman Pak is a counter-terrorist training site. [Oh, great.]
The problem is, there is almost always something "wrong" with the evidence. But this is a completely normal phenomenon of God-ordained Satanic meddling. This should remind us that some feeble-minded jurors in American courtrooms can't vote to convict obviously guilty parties.)
Besides, we'd like to have a lot more than the usual circumstantial evidence (especially since we have so many Americans who will oppose even an obviously appropriate military response). We want to have the proverbial smoking gun--and genuinely smoking guns are hard to come by.
For various emotion-charged reasons, we furthermore wanted to find the "gun" right after it was fired. The passage of time makes it less smoky in our perception. (We have become dulled to the mounting evidence. We have gotten sidetracked in arguments in the UN about an oddly different matter.)
In the next place, we tend to expect not only a smoking gun but an outright confession. And we are not going to get this. The Sean Penn types are going to believe Saddam's protestations of innocence--largely because terrorists have historically claimed responsibility for acts of terrorism.
Ah, but we live in an ugly new world. A lot of time passed before we could get solid evidence that Al Qaeda was terribly interested in taking glorious responsibility for 9/11! And Saddam is content for various reasons to disavow any connection. In short, it seems that the exigencies of the terrorists' situation are such that they have to be content with more post-incident secrecy. The nation-states which sponsor terrorists realize that they can't hide from the wrath of the United States if they brag about the incidents of terrorism.
(I think that this may explain the shootdown of TWA 800. For various reasons, our own government has covered up what really happened [there has been new info on this today, BTW], and the terrorists declined to take organizationally-specific credit.)
In the final analysis, I think we have to get beyond all the smoke-and-mirrors issues. With all due respect to St. Thomas Aquinas, I think we need to default to the well-known and completely unapologetic Texas approach which points out that Saddam just needs killing.