A question to the list:
Attacking Iraq makes little sense from the point of view of "war on terrorism" - since Iraq is almost certainly not involved in sponsoring terrorism. The question thus remains, why Bush and his entourage pursue it?
The "wag the dog" explanations (e.g. vendetta, mobilizing popular support to win the November election) do not seem very convincing.
One possibility is that Iraq is merely a diversion, and the real targets are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Attacking these countries makes perfect sense from the point of view of "war on terrorism" because these countries are main sponsors of terrorist networks. Any thoughts?
wojtek