Teribus, after wading through all the back and forth, going back again to the excerpt from your original post:

Where that event does come into the picture relates to potential future threat - no-one has come up with any grounds for dispelling
the likelyhood that Saddam could provide WMD, or WMD technology and know how to an international terrorist group that could
target America. Remember that he, Saddam, was the only international leader in the world to publically applaud those attacks.

notwithstanding Powell's comment to the media regarding lack of threat posed by Iraq to his immediate neighbours, due to the presence of no fly zones and sanctions, re conventional weapons-

I would still like to ask for the following questions:

When does a potential future threat that likely could provide WMD cross over to a point where, another nation decides it has the right unilaterally to attack that "potential future threat" which "likely could provide WMDs" to terrorist organizations?

Could it be when the other nation's leader has the stupidity and gaul to rub hypothetical salt into the wounds of the US? Is that why the US declared war on Iraq?

You may wish to disregard it, but as far as passing on "know-how regarding WMDs" to terrorist organizations" or "rogue states" there are a number of just as likely candidates as Iraq was and yes, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Iran and member states of the former USSR come to mind. Does this give the right to the US and others to unilaterally go in and blast them because of their "potential"?

I have still not seen anything, to date, that would disabuse me of the idea, that the reasons that the US chose to hammer Iraq with it's military might was America's need for a scapegoat after 9/11 to show others it's might, it's wish to illiminate administrations of states which are not sympathetic to western economic interests, particularly in the middle east and it's shortsighted perception that Iraq would be an easier target and less politically messy as they were militarily already geared up to do so and it would not be hard to get people on side because Hussein is considered such an "evil man".

And just because I sometimes like to answer some of my own:

Does this make continental US or Europe safer from terrorist attacks? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.

Is it turning out to be messy? Yup

Are the UK and the US going to bring a secular democracy to Iraq in a suitcase on a tank? I wouldn't bet on it.

Does it assure a kinder and gentler administration in Iraq? Not necessarily

Is it going to secure the US oil supply in the middle east? I wouldn't bet on that either, control of others is usually an enterprize in futility.

In fact, I might harbour a guess, but I wouldn't bet on a lot of things, particularly in the world of politics.

                                                                         But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
                                                                         In proving foresight may be vain:
                                                                      The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
                                                                                    Gang aft agley,
                                                                      An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
                                                                                    For promis'd joy!