Let's clear this up, once and for all.
Did Iraq and Al-Qaeda talk occasionally? Yes. According to all the evidence, though, the only real conection was that "Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda".
Iraq also refused overtures from Al-Qaeda to be closely linked. The 9/11 commission determined that There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States.
The rebroadcasting of propaganda is hardly an "imminent threat" to the US.
How is it then, that last year, in the buildup to the war, nearly 70 percent of Americans believed that Iraq was largely responsible for 9/11? Read on_
"The al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issue were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the U.S. And the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things." -- Greg Thielmann (former director for strategic proliferation and military affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research).
The humanitarian reasons spouted by the administration were a last resort and are blatantly untrue, as evidenced by their failure to intervene in places like Sudan and the DR Congo.
This discussion has been taking place on Jen's blog, and she responded with this_
Sure, Chris, but your analysis again suffers from a fatal flaw_ That "imminent threat" thing has been thoroughly discredited.In regards to "imminent threat", you're mostly right. It's a complicated situation, (outlined well here) and ultimately a poor choice of cliches by me.
That slip on my part is far less than a fatal flaw, though. The deceptions of this administration are well-documented, and I stand by my point.
One more follow-up: There are quite a few interesting quotes here regarding Iraq's threat
While the phrase "imminent threat" isn't used often, the message sent by all of these quotes is clear.