[Chris Alger]

No, the only issue is why Australia and Great Britain also claim that Iraq has links to al Qaeda despite the absence of any additional evidence? There's an interesting question of dependency and "junior partner" relations, but it has nothing to do with al Qaeda. Otherwise, do you suppose the leaders of Australia and G. Britain have some special ability to discern facts that no one else can see, but cannot share them with a world, or even their constitutents, even as they are denounced as lapdogs and liars?

"Also, even if Iraq hasn't supported or executed terrorist attacks with WMD abroad, doesn't mean it won't."

Since same applies to Syrian or Japan or the U.S., this is a meaningless statement. More importantly, the absence of hard evidence suggesting a propensity for Iraqi terrorism means the US leadership is lying about the justification for war. We either reject this perversion of leadership in a democracy, or are no better off than the subjects of a dictatorship.

"I think it's better that Iraq not have that option."

Iraqi refugees and dissidents to the war will both retain that option and have more reason to use it. A war based on lies is more likely to create terrorism than prevent it.