OK folks for yet the umpteenth time just exactly what DID the man say. Not an exercise in semantics, just a simple exercise in comprehension:

George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 28th January, 2003:

Point 1.
"With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Based purely on statements made by Saddam Hussein, and on his own track record, the above assessment is not outwith the bounds of probability.

Point 2.
"And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

The threat mentioned in the first sentence is specified in the third. It is a question that has been asked before, but never fully answered. Taking those two sentences together, by what reasoning can that threat be totally discounted? The second sentence refers to fairly well known links between the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad and terrorist groups operating outwith Iraq's borders, primarily those groups in conflict with the Israelis. The reference to Al-Qaeda, is made because such an "alliance" based on the fundamental differences between Ba'athist Iraq and bin Laden's organisation appears unlikely. But Ba'athist Iraq did allow a senior member of Al-Qaeda entry to their country, they did allow that senior member of Al-Qaeda to remain in Iraq for hospital treatment and undoubtedly Iraqi intelligence did talk to him. What should have happened was that that man should have been arrested and held in Iraq, he wasn't. Now that trail of events, taken in isolation, may not be all that significant, but combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein was the only political leader of any country to publicly applaud and congratulate the attacks of September 11th, 2001 meant that such links irrespective of how frail could not be completely ignored.

Point 3.
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained."

First sentence, pure statement of fact borne out by years of inaction and lack of resolve by the United Nations. Second sentence underlines what has been evaluated as a potential threat subsequent to September 11th, 2001.

Elsewhere in the body of the address referred to, specific mention is made of the desireability of implementation and verification of UN resolutions regarding Iraq, in order to eliminate Iraq as a potential supplier of the weapons described above to international terrorist organisation. Elsewhere in the address referred to, specific mention is made of the UN assessment of the weapons believed to be held illegaly by the Iraqi regime.

At no time at all has George W Bush ever said Iraq was in any way, shape or form responsible for the attacks of 11th September 2001. The fact does remain that a senior member of his administration clearly stated that position very shortly after those attacks took place.