The point remains. You say you won't make any guesses or inferences regarding the origin of the anthrax, it's possible implications for war policy, or what the President may be weighing when making his decisions. Are you willing to discuss, hypothetically, what might follow if there was intelligence indicating Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and the anthrax mailings?
If all you are willing to discuss is what is evident from agreed upon facts, what is your basis for believing that the only reason we haven't attacked Baghdad yet is because the forces weren't in place? What is your basis for believing that an attack is imminent? Please quote your sources.
Considering how hard the Administration has been trying to make a case against Iraq (remember the dubious documents about Iraq trying to purchase uranium that turned out to be hoaxes), if there were a credible, verifable link between Iraq and and the anthrax attacks, IMO it would have been presented. I really don't think that Iraq had much involvement with the 9/11 attacks, if any, and instead has been a refuge for the occasion Al Qaeda operative - bin Laden has said rather harsh words about Saddam in the past, I doubt he would rely on Saddam too much. But I'm not one of those who needs a link between Saddam and 9/11 to act against him, so for me it's moot at this point anyway.