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.
The uranium lead came at a particular point in the negotiations, when the administration was pushing for a particular UN goal. I don't see any evidence that the administration has been trying to make a case against Iraq. If they were, there is vastly more information - along the lines of what Powell presented to the UN - that they could have made public. The evidence of Iraqi nefariousness is being dribbled out. Why?
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.
Who is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, really? Who is Ramzi Yousef, really? How did al Qaeda go from incompetence to prominence to incompetence over a span of 5 years? Is the question whether bin Laden would rely on Saddam, or Saddam on bin Laden?
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.
I agree completely that we don't need 9/11 as a justification. But, I don't believe it is a moot point whether or not Saddam has the demonstrated ability to launch via terrorist proxy a bioweapon attack on the US capable of killing millions.